REVIEW - Home - Law Library of Ireland€¦ · Lydia Bunni BL Simon Donagh BL Elizabeth Donovan BL...

Journal of The Bar of IrelandVolume 25 Number 2

April 2020

REVIEWTHE BAR

Back to the future: PPOs and Hegarty v HSE

www.bloomsburyprofessional.com

CONTENTS

32THE BAR REVIEW : Volume 25; Number 2 – April 2020

Papers, editorial items, and all queries regarding subscriptions should be addressed to: Aedamair Gallagher at: [email protected]

39

35

Message from the Chairman 33 Editor’s note 34

News 34

Members’ area – Covid-19 section

International Women’s Day 2020

Justice Week 2020

Interview 39

Access to justice for all

Law in practice

Back to the future: PPOs and Hegarty v HSE 42

Obituary

Adrian Mannering SC 47

Legal update viii

Law in practice

Complaints to the Legal Services

Regulatory Authority 48

Too old to work? 52

Closing argument 56

Underfunded justice

The Bar Review The Bar of Ireland Distillery Building 145-151 Church Street Dublin DO7 WDX8 Direct: +353 (0)1 817 5025 Fax: +353 (0)1 817 5150 Email: [email protected] Web: www.lawlibrary.ie

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor Eilis Brennan SC Brian Kennedy SC Clíona Kimber SC Paul McGarry SC Sara Moorhead SC Sean O hUallacháin SC Susan Ahern BL Patricia Brazil BL Lydia Bunni BL Simon Donagh BL Elizabeth Donovan BL Anita Finucane BL Tom Flynn BL Ciara Murphy, CEO Vanessa Curley, Law Library Aedamair Gallagher, Senior Research and Policy Executive Tom Cullen, Publisher Paul O'Grady, Publisher Ann-Marie Hardiman, Think Media

PUBLISHERS Published on behalf of The Bar of Ireland by Think Media Ltd

Editorial: Ann-Marie Hardiman Paul O’Grady Colm Quinn Design: Tony Byrne Tom Cullen Niamh Short Advertising: Paul O’Grady

Commercial matters and news items relating to The Bar Review should be addressed to: Paul O’Grady The Bar Review Think Media Ltd The Malthouse, 537 NCR, Dublin DO1 R5X8 Tel: +353 (0)1 856 1166 Fax: +353 (0)1 856 1169 Email: [email protected] Web: www.thinkmedia.ie

www.lawlibrary.ie Views expressed by contributors or correspondents are not necessarily those of The Bar of Ireland or the publisher and neither The Bar of Ireland nor the publisher accept any responsibility for them.

48

52

THE BAR REVIEW : Volume 25; Number 2 – April 2020

An Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has addressed the nation on three occasions since St

Patrick’s Day – that now seems like a lifetime ago. Normal freedoms have been

suspended. Difficult times lie ahead. We all have an important role to play in the

societal effort to tackle this national and global emergency. As cases and fatalities

continue to rise in Ireland, basic decency necessitates that we all comply with the

official guidelines and with the advice of the public health experts. The message is

clear – stay at home, maintain social distancing and self-isolate should you

experience any symptoms.

The Council is acutely aware of the challenges that members face on different

fronts due to the current situation. For most members, income streams have been

turned off like a tap. The Council has been meeting weekly to discuss our

approach to supporting members during this unprecedented crisis. The Chief

Executive and I are liaising and meeting regularly throughout the course of each

day and night, and Council members have been liaising with each other and with

the membership generally to gather feedback and to highlight issues of concern.

I am immensely grateful to Council members and to the Executive for their tireless

work and support. We continue to invite members to provide feedback to help

inform the work of the Council during this extraordinary time.

Court sittings During the course of the last few weeks, the Council made representations, as

appropriate, on matters that were arising for members in carrying out their

professional duties before the courts. We greatly appreciate the work of the

judiciary and the Courts Service over the past number of weeks in dealing with

the concerns of members and other court users, while also ensuring that the

administration of justice proceeds to the greatest extent possible.

Remote hearings The Council has made a detailed submission to the Chief Justice to indicate our

support for the introduction of remote hearings so that some reasonable measure

of court work can continue during this period. We must find ways for the

administration of justice to continue in this crisis. A remote hearing conducted by

technology is no substitute for an oral hearing with counsel and clients present.

However, in this emergency, our courts and the profession cannot stand frozen.

Access to a functioning court system is the bedrock of our democracy.

Business of the Council and committees Despite the disruption, work continues across key projects. Shaping the future of

CPD – an internal review of our CPD offering and structures – is currently

underway. Members are invited to share their views and experience of the current

CPD Scheme to help inform improvements. Full details on how to participate in

the review can be found in In Brief and the Education and Training Bulletin.

A public consultation by the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) on the

unification of the solicitors’ and barristers’ professions is underway and the

Council is in the process of preparing a submission. Members are invited to submit

any observations they may have. I would like to express my gratitude to all who

participated in and assisted with our inaugural Justice Week in February. The

campaign was a huge success and would not have been possible without the

generous contribution of our members’ time and effort, including that of

members of the judiciary. It is intended that Justice Week will form part of the

legal and justice sector’s annual calendar of events and we look forward to the

involvement of many more voices in 2021.

This year marked the fifth annual dinner hosted by The Bar of Ireland to celebrate

women in law as part of International Women’s Day. The unveiling of a portrait of

Ms Justice Mary Laffoy by the award-winning artist Hetty Lawlor made this year’s

celebrations all the more special. The portrait will be on permanent display on the

walls of the King’s Inns in honour of Justice Laffoy’s extraordinary contribution to

the legal profession and to the law.

Mental health and well-being It is more important than ever that we look after our collective mental health and

well-being, as well as our physical health. It is hard not to feel isolated and

stressed during this difficult time. Please be reminded of our Consult a Colleague

Helpline and the range of external supports that are available via

www.yourmentalhealth.ie.

As we adapt to new ways of working, it is important that we try to restore normal

routines of daily living. This is easier said than done. This is a time when the

collegiality of the Bar is an immense resource and I ask you to check in on

colleagues and support one another through this as best we can. The Council is

giving active consideration to how it can support members during this challenging

time in the short, medium and long term, and further updates will issue in this

regard.

I would like to take the opportunity once again to thank members of the Council,

the Executive and the wider membership for their support and understanding as

we navigate these unprecedented times. Please be assured that we will continue

to support all members as best we can. Let’s stay positive and play our part.

In Thomas Kinsella’s memorable but brutal phrase, when we

eventually come through this and can look back in time at

this awful period, hopefully we will be “Hacked clean for

better bearing”.

Wishing you and your family members good health.

33

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN

Justice must continue

Micheál P. O’Higgins SC

Chairman,

Council of The Bar of Ireland

As members struggle to deal with the impact of the Covid-19 crisis, the importance of collegiality has never been more evident.

EDITOR’S NOTE


Business as usual

These are tumultuous times. The focus of all our lives has dwindled to the

key essentials of keeping each other safe and surviving this crisis. But this

isolation will end. And in the interim, we aim to keep you up to date with all

the recent developments in law and practice.

The Legal Services Regulatory Authority has now commenced investigating

complaints against legal practitioners in relation to inadequate services,

excessive costs, and misconduct. Happily, at this early stage, it appears that

there have been very few complaints against barristers. However, one feature

that cuts across almost all complaints is a lack of communication, where a

legal practitioner fails to properly respond and adequately explain issues to

clients. We analyse how the new regulatory regime will operate in practice,

including the provisions relating to informal resolution/mediation.

The new Chief Executive of the Courts Service is no stranger to members,

given her years of experience as Deputy Master and Registrar in the High

Court. In this edition, Angela Denning sets out the strategy to modernise

the Courts Service and improve access to justice for all.

The recent Work Relations Commission decision in Anne Roper v RTÉ has

again highlighted the difficulties and uncertainties surrounding compulsory

retirement ages. Our author describes the balancing act that employers must

engage in when dealing with employees nearing retirement.

And finally, we return to the vexed issue of periodic payment orders, or

PPOs, for plaintiffs who receive damages for catastrophic injuries. Given the

recent High Court decision in Hegarty v HSE, it appears a PPO will rarely, if

ever, be appropriate to meet a plaintiff’s needs, given the current indexation

provisions prescribed by the legislation. Clearly, a legislative rethink is

required.

Best wishes to all our members and their families at this difficult time.

The Planning, Environmental and Local Government Bar

Association (PELGBA) held its inaugural conference in the

Dublin Dispute Resolution Centre (DDRC) on Saturday, February

29. The Conference was chaired by Mr Justice Brian Murray,

Judge of the Court of Appeal. Nuala Butler SC opened the

conference and discussed reasons for planning decisions. This

was followed by Eamonn Galligan SC speaking on the topic of

judicial review, Dermot Flanagan SC discussing recent

developments in compulsory purchase law and possible reform,

and Stephen Dodd SC, on recent developments in local

authority law, such as: housing; the vacant site levy;

rates/valuation; and, other matters.

The afternoon panel consisted of Tom Flynn BL, on key recent

developments in environmental law, and Suzanne Murray BL, on

recent developments in enforcement and Section 5. The

PELGBA is a specialist association for barristers who practise in

or have an interest in planning, environmental and local

government law in Ireland. For more information about

upcoming events or to join the association, please go to

www.pelgba.ie.

Despite the current crisis, our efforts continue to report on and analyse relevant legal issues and cases.

Eilis Brennan SC Editor

[email protected]

PELGBA ConferenceBarrister named Sailor of the YearCongratulations to Paul O’Higgins SC, who was given Irish Sailing’s

Sailor of the Year award for his two-in-a-row win of the Volvo Dún

Laoghaire to Dingle race. Racing his JPK 1080, Rockabill VI, he showed

consistent form, with a series of wins throughout the year, including at

the Irish Cruiser Racing Association (ICRA) National Championships in

June, Calves Week in August, and the Irish Sea Offshore Racing

Association (ISORA) title in September. The Sailor of the Year award is

given by Irish Sailing in association with Afloat magazine.

NEWS

35 THE BAR REVIEW : Volume 25; Number 2 – April 2020

International Women’s Day 2020

A portrait of Ms Justice Mary Laffoy by the award-winning artist Hetty

Lawlor was unveiled as part of The Bar of Ireland’s International Women’s Day

celebrations on March 5, 2020. The portrait, which was commissioned by The

Bar of Ireland in honour of Justice Laffoy’s extraordinary contribution to the

legal profession, will be on permanent display on the walls of the King’s Inns.

The portrait, which took just over two months to complete, is the third

portrait of a female judge to hang on the walls of the King’s Inns, joining the

portraits of Susan Denham and Mella Carroll. This year marked the fifth

annual dinner hosted by The Bar of Ireland to celebrate women in law as part

of International Women’s Day.

An esteemed audience of barristers, judges, solicitors and State officials

gathered in the King’s Inns dining hall to celebrate their female colleagues.

Attendees were given a warm welcome by Chair of the Equality, Diversity and

Inclusion Committee, Moira Flahive BL, who underlined the importance of

gender equality in the legal professions and called on those who brief the Bar

to make a conscious effort to look beyond their usual pool of barristers and

to assist in the equitable distribution of briefing to both male and female

counsel in all areas of practice. Ms Flahive then delightedly unveiled Justice

Laffoy’s portrait, with the help of artist Hetty Lawlor and Ms Justice Laffoy,

to rapturous applause and a standing ovation.

Following the dinner, Justice Laffoy addressed guests on the issue of gender

equality in legal practice and wider society. Expressing her support and

optimism for the work of the Citizens’ Assembly, Justice Laffoy called for a

collective response to the issue of gender equality, inviting the guests at the

event to be “each for equal”. In response to her portrait, Justice Laffoy said

that she was honoured to have it join those of others on the walls of the

King’s Inns, and especially honoured that it is the creation of such a talented,

young female artist as Hetty Lawlor.

From left: Ms Justice Mary Laffoy; Grainne Larkin BL, member of the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee of The Bar of Ireland; and, Hetty Lawlor, artist.

In February, The Bar of Ireland held its inaugural Justice Week – a joint awareness campaign of the legal professions across the four jurisdictions (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, and England and Wales). The campaign was first initiated by the Bar Council of England and Wales in 2018, and 2020 is the first year that all four jurisdictions took part in a joint effort to boost the profile of justice and the rule of law. The focus of the 2020 campaign was to engage with young people (the under 25s) through a series of events and social media to inform, educate and improve their understanding of the importance of the justice system, and to demonstrate the possibilities that the law can provide in protecting their fundamental rights and freedoms. Each day of the week carried a distinct theme, which reflected many of the common challenges facing citizens and states across Europe and beyond, such as: climate justice; the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms; and, access to justice. Bringing attention to the importance of law and the courts in addressing these challenges is an important and continuous exercise and The Bar of Ireland was delighted to see such a fantastic level of response and engagement across the wider legal and justice community, and particularly among our younger citizens, throughout the week. Among the initiatives organised and hosted by The Bar of Ireland was a mock trial between the students of St Audoen’s National School in Green Street Courthouse, an inter-university debate involving law students from UCC, DCU, NUIG, UCD, UL and MU, and a survey of the 100 participants of The Bar of Ireland’s Look into Law Transition Year programme, which assessed their understanding of, and

attitudes towards, the justice system. The Bar of Ireland also took the opportunity to highlight and to communicate key policy priorities impacting on the justice sector, and reiterated its call on the next government to prioritise investment in legal aid and to commit the necessary resources to develop a dedicated family law and children’s court at Hammond Lane. The Bar of Ireland would like to thank everyone who participated and assisted with Justice Week 2020. The campaign was a huge success and would not have been possible without the generous contribution of our members’ time and effort, and that of members of the judiciary. The Bar of Ireland would like to see Justice Week form part of the legal and justice sector’s annual calendar of events, and looks forward to the involvement of many more voices in 2021.

Justice Week 2020

Pictured are the winners of the inter-university Justice Week debate, who successfully argued for the proposition ‘This house believes that law is politics by other means’ before a prestigious panel of judges (from left): Jason Herbert, UCC; Ciara Ramsbottom, DCU; Simeon Burke, NUIG; Mr Justice Brian Murray; Órla O’Donnell, Legal Affairs Correspondent, RTÉ; Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly; and, Micheál P. O’Higgins SC, Chairman, Council of The Bar of Ireland.

NEWS


A dedicated section of the members’ area of the Law Library

website – www.lawlibrary.ie – has been developed as a single point

of contact for Covid-19 preparations and developments. Included

are a number of resources that members may find useful in the

context of working remotely, as well as links to other justice sector

agencies. The site will be expanded and improved upon as the

situation develops, and members’ suggestions are welcome at:

[email protected].

Members’ area – Covid-19 section

Aon states that the legal profession is a target for cyber criminals

with motives of financial gain via theft of confidential information

or funds. According to the insurer, cyber risk affects us all due to

our reliance on technology, connectivity, and automated

processes.

In an increasingly punitive legal and regulatory environment, Aon

states some professionals are taking proactive steps to explore

and transfer their cyber risk.

Many factors contribute to barrister’s cyber risk profile, including:

action by employees; system/programme errors; security

measures; nature and quantity of data collected; political or

strategic significance; and, reliance on technology. Cyber risks

considerations for legal professionals:

■ theft and potential release of personally identifiable or

corporate confidential information in your care;

■ malware/incident preventing access to your network or systems

or those of outsourced service providers;

■ insider access;

■ intentional acts committed by rogue employees; and,

■ ransomware attacks.

Aon provides cyber risk insurance for barristers.

Cyber insurance for barristers

www.hipadr.ie


NEWS

Gender equality submissionA submission, prepared jointly by the Council of The Bar of

Ireland and the Employment Bar Association, was made in

response to the Citizens’ Assembly’s Public Consultation on

Gender Equality. The submission recommends a series of actions

to address gender inequality in the areas of pay,

recruitment/promotion, workplace structures, and caring

responsibilities, and can be viewed on the Law Library website –

www.lawlibrary.ie.

EUBA and ISEL eventA joint EU Bar Association (EUBA) and Irish Society for European

Law (ISEL) event took place in the Gaffney Room on Wednesday,

January 29. The theme of the event was ‘Litigation Funding and

Class Actions – An International Perspective’, and it was chaired by

Mr Justice Frank Clarke, Chief Justice. The event served as the

formal launch of a joint report prepared by the EUBA and ISEL, in

relation to litigation funding and class actions. Speakers travelled

internationally to participate and included: Meghan Summers,

Partner, Kirby McInerney, New York; Susan Dunne, Co-Founder,

Harbour Litigation Funding, London; and, Dr Alex Petrasincu,

Partner, Hausfeld, Berlin and Düsseldorf. Each speaker discussed

the systems operating in their jurisdictions. The full report is

available to download in the European Law events section on the

ISEL website: www.isel.ie.

The Covid-19 pandemic has wreaked devastation all over the world,

with the number of fatalities in the tens of thousands and total

confirmed infections fast approaching one million. Lockdowns have

become common and in Ireland, all but our most essential workers are

under order by the Government to stay at home. The global economy

has experienced a severe shock with extreme volatility in financial

markets. The worst element of the pandemic is its impact on the

health of the most vulnerable in our society; however, it is also

causing many to worry about their financial security in retirement.

Implications for retirement savers Unless you are reasonably close to retirement, your retirement

savings should be considered a long-term investment. Investment

markets are very difficult to predict over the short term. Selling

growth assets after they have fallen limits your ability to recover any

losses in future. So if you get these decisions wrong, you can

materially affect the size of your retirement savings and your future

financial security. As a result, changing long-term investment

choices in response to short-term market events is generally not

advisable.

Instead, you should make sure that your investment choices are

appropriate given your risk preferences, your circumstances, your

objectives, and your time to retirement. For example, you may wish

to invest depending on how far you are from retirement. This might

involve investing in growth-oriented funds when far from

retirement, with the aim of growing your retirement savings. Then

making a progressive move into funds that match how you expect

to take your benefits at retirement, over the last c. 7-10 years

before retirement.

The funds expected to provide the highest return over the long

term are also likely to have the highest level of ups and downs in

returns, or volatility, over the short term.

If you are far from retirement, short-term market volatility will not

be welcome, but you will likely have sufficient time to weather

these short-term market fluctuations and recover value. However,

switching to low-risk/return funds in response to short-term losses

may lock in the reduced value of your retirement savings.

When to take advice If you are closer to retirement, typically within c. 7-10 years, the

effect of these swings is more problematic as there may not be

sufficient time for your savings to recover before retirement. It is

considered best practice for pension plan investors to move their

retirement savings gradually towards investments that match the

type of benefits they expect to take at retirement, in or around the

last 7-10 years before retirement. Anyone approaching retirement

should therefore consider taking financial advice on the options

available to them, to ensure their investments match their risk

profile and preferences.

These unprecedented times are a concern for all investors and

markets are likely to continue to experience volatility. Those saving

for retirement have the advantage of a longer-term investment

horizon and staying the course should provide the best opportunity

for their investments to recover and increase in value.

Stay the course

Considerations for retirement savers in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis from Donal Coyne, Director of Pensions at JLT, which operates The Bar of Ireland Retirement Trust Scheme.


www.aonportal.ie


As a relatively newly appointed CEO (since September 2019) with a massive agenda

of reform to pursue, Angela Denning is already very busy, but on the day of our

interview in early March, we are also hearing rumours of impending shutdown of

services as a result of the Covid-19 crisis (of which more later). Angela is

philosophical in the face of the coming challenges: “As the former President of the

High Court told me many years ago, hold your nerve. Everything will work out”.

Angela has spent most of her career with the Courts Service (see panel), apart from

a brief period with An Garda Síochána, and a year in the Government Reform Unit

at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. This period away from the

courts was extremely useful in preparing her for the reform programme she is now

leading: “I worked on a wide mix of legislation and projects that supported

transparent government: whistle-blowing, lobbying, ethics, data sharing, open data,

and freedom of information. I was also part of the Government reform team,

including the Civil Service Renewal Plan and Public Service 2020”.

She felt she brought particular skills to the role as well: “I think we’re very lucky in

the courts that we work directly with our citizens and with court users every day, so

we get that instant feedback that other Government departments don’t get”.

Angela now brings all of that experience to her current role: “I think it’s important

for the leader of any organisation to have a good grasp of the work. I have built

relationships with staff, with the members of the judiciary. I don’t just see the Courts

Service perspective, I see the broader cross-justice perspective as well”.

A decade of reform

That ability to work with what she calls “our sister justice agencies” is all the more

vital as the Courts Service begins its ten-year reform programme, which will

encompass every element of how the Service operates: “The Courts Service is not

INTERVIEW

Access to justice for all

In an interview that took place before the worst of the Covid-19 crisis was upon us, CEO of the Courts Service Angela Denning told The Bar Review about the plans to modernise and develop the Service for all users.

Ann-Marie Hardiman Managing Editor, Think Media Ltd.


INTERVIEW

an island. We don't work in isolation from practitioners, from other agencies, from

wider Government, or from our citizens”.

So why is reform needed? Angela sees it as a reflection of changes in society

generally, which have resulted, quite rightly, in an expectation that services will

operate differently: “Much of court processes and procedures were designed for a

particular time, but time has moved on, technology has moved on, and people have

moved on. Practitioners have moved on too; there isn't a law firm in the country

that doesn't use technology to assist them in how they do their work”.

At a very basic level, it means doing away with outdated and cumbersome processes,

to make things “easier, quicker and cheaper”. Angela talks about the “quick wins”

that will show people that change is happening, such as facilitating card payments,

and reducing paper-based business. Making older court buildings fit for purpose

will also form part of the plan. But for this kind of root and branch reform, a

tremendous amount of foundation work has to be done, and that’s the stage the

Service is at right now: “We’re trying to build our capability and capacity in IT, and

in our change programme office. We’ve advertised for a head of communications.

We've established a sustainability unit and are establishing a procurement unit.

These are all things that I think a modern organisation needs in order to be able to

deliver the large-scale change that we're looking at”.

Angela is obviously hugely enthusiastic about this programme, and our interview is

filled with examples of inefficiencies that need to be addressed, and improvements

that have already been made: “We've centralised our jury summons in Castlebar and

that has given us financial savings. When somebody gets a jury summons now – we

send out 120,000 a year – and they lift the phone, they get somebody who can

answer their query. The question is: why do they need to lift the phone? Why do

they need to post their summons back? So we’re currently looking at an online

platform for jurors”.

“I think it's safe to say that our civil and family law IT systems are on their knees, so they will be our priorities in the first three to five years. If we don’t have capacity and capability, no amount of money will deliver what we need”.

Priorities

As the foundation building continues, what are the priorities? Upscaling IT is clearly

top of the agenda, and is where resources and funding will be concentrated in the

early years: “I think it's safe to say that our civil and family law IT systems are on

their knees, so they will be our priorities in the first three to five years. If we don’t

have capacity and capability, no amount of money will deliver what we need”.

Money is of course an issue. Angela’s team is working on a strategic business case

to try to secure funding for the first three years of the programme to start with, and

then for the longer term.

The task then is to deliver promptly on the first small projects, so that stakeholders

can see what can be achieved: “It's about getting people used to the idea that the

Courts Service is not going to stand still. The steps we’re taking at the moment are

steps along the way and I hope that people will see that incremental improvement

as the years move on”.

Angela is delighted to have the support of the judiciary and the professions in this

endeavour: “For the first time, we now have a Modernisation Committee of the

Courts Service Board, chaired by the Chief Justice. This is very much being led by

the Chief Justice. That partnership approach is the only way this will work. It's about

us all working together to deliver improvements across the system”.

Many suggestions for efficiencies come from staff within the organisation, and

Angela is delighted to encourage this: “The newer staff who've joined us in recent

years are absolutely fantastic because they haven’t been indoctrinated in the way

we do things around here. They see the possibilities”.

One of these ideas is a fantastic new approach to staff training, which will also

increase efficiencies in rolling out other innovations: “We’ve had a huge number of

staff retire, so we’re rebuilding our training. All of our staff have told us that the

most frightening part is not the knowledge, it’s the first day in the courtroom, and

somebody said, can we not get virtual reality goggles to do that? So what we’ve

done in this building is build a model court, and we're going to use that to test all

of our IT, including the different types of technology that registrars will use, to see

whether things work”.

Angela is keenly aware that simply digitising everything is not the solution: “If the

processes are cumbersome, and you digitise them, it will not give us the efficiency

that will be required”.

Family law is also high on the agenda: “Hammond Lane is a real priority. We need

to build something that will suit the demographic projections. It's an entirely

different building to the ones we have built already. We don’t need cells, separate

entrances for prisoners, suites for An Garda Síochána and the prison service. We’ll

need facilities for the Legal Aid Board, for mediation services, NGOs. We’ll need

those types of supports in the building to encourage people, first of all, to mediate,

and then to make that court journey easier”.

The system needs to work for citizens as well as staff. This ‘customer focus’ is

something Angela has spoken about several times since her appointment, and it’s

something that’s particularly important to her, and to the Service’s partner agencies:

“It's about enabling access to justice for everyone. We're very lucky at the moment

that there's an alignment between justice agencies, and with wider social partners

as well, such as NGOs, to improve things for the people who live in this country”.

In her spare time, Angela loves to spend time on her allotment: “Somebody

said to me, ‘When things get bad, what do you do?’ And I said, ‘I go and I

dig’”. She also does hot yoga, and enjoys reading. She walks and cycles to

work, which she says is great for her mental health: “I’m conscious that I

can't look after my staff, and all the rest of it, unless I look after myself”.

She tries to pass that message on to staff too: “We've tried to bring

well-being initiatives into work, like lunchtime pilates, meditation, and

lunchtime walks. People need to see that it's okay to do this, and that we

consider it to be part of your job to keep yourself well. I want this to be a

place that people look forward to coming to work in. I would like my staff

to be motivated and content, and to enjoy their jobs. And I think part of

that is me letting them know that I care about them. At times, our staff

work in very, very difficult situations, and we have a responsibility to look

after them”.

Minding yourself


INTERVIEW

The bigger picture

The reform process is also about the Courts Service’s wider contribution to economic

stability: “The Bar has the Ireland for Law initiative. We’d like to be able to do our

part to support that. We need to prove the Wi-Fi in courtrooms, Wi-Fi access for

practitioners. E-licensing is another very good example of where we’re using

technology to try to ensure that solicitors don't have to come to court more than

the one time that they do need to come. Our court processes are not technologically

enabled. You have to come and file papers in our offices or post them in. That's

something we really need to look at. Economic growth needs stability. We have legal

stability in this country in that our judiciary is highly regarded. That's a huge strength.

If we can introduce things that improve the timeliness of access to justice, that’s

really important”.

This also extends to the elements of the strategy that involve using the Courts

Service’s buildings better, including moving some services away from Dublin to rural

towns in need of regeneration: “The centralisation of jury summonses and the service

of foreign documents in Castlebar really shone a light for me on how we can improve

our organisational structures, but also what we can deliver for rural towns. I’m very

conscious that in the current market, accommodation is expensive for our lower-paid

staff in the Dublin region, and I need to take that into consideration. We will have

an estate strategy by the end of the year for our courthouse buildings, which will

determine which buildings are upgraded. There will be some courthouse closures,

because the current estate is very scattered. It's costly to maintain, and I can't

provide the type of facilities I'm talking about – video conferencing facilities – in

every courthouse in Ireland. We'll do that in a planned way, taking account of

demographics and public services”.

Changes will be also audited to make sure they work for users: “We hired consultants

to speak to users of the e-licensing system to get their feedback, to see what

improvements we need to make, and what we could have done better, because

that's the first time we've really engaged directly with practitioners. To me, it's a

test case to see how that engagement works, and where we come across pinch

points, where we need to do things better, and what the blockers are for

practitioners. There’s no point in us putting in a system if people can't use it because

we haven't considered something at design stage. It might slow things down, but

if you engage at an earlier stage, you get a better outcome”.

Trust

With the focus on customer service, and on including all stakeholders in this process,

the issue of trust is critical. In particular, for members of the public in these sceptical

times, trusting a system that proposes to allow online guilty pleas for minor offences,

or large-scale digital processing and exchange of information, is a big ask. Angela

is very aware of this, and putting systems in place to ensure that this trust is not

misplaced is central to the whole reform process: “You have to be open and

transparent. You have to use people’s data well and safely. Our citizens are concerned

about how Government uses their data. Government does use their data very well

and is very cautious about using their data, but there's a perception out there that

somehow we’ll misuse it, and I think of all organisations, the Courts Service needs

to be really alive to that. GDPR training has been rolled out here and there’s been a

huge take-up”.

Coronavirus

Even before the Covid-19 crisis had truly taken hold, Angela’s office was dealing

with the implications of new government formation, and the fact that there are no

guarantees in terms of how funding or supports will be rolled out. The current

unprecedented situation only serves to bring that home even more: “Covid-19 has

taught us how quickly priorities can change. Commitments to fund things are all

well and good, but if this creates a global downturn, that will impact funding, and

we, like every other public service organisation, will have to cut our cloth to suit our

measure”.

The first closures of schools and businesses were still days away at the time of

our interview, but Angela and her staff were making preparations for what

subsequently came to pass: “We have a bi-weekly meeting of senior staff. We

have plans in place. We will continue to provide court services and court

hearings. We are guided by the HSE, so at whatever point we’re told to scale

back hearings and so on we have a plan in place as to what the priorities are,

what services need to continue to be supported, and we’ll divert our resources

accordingly”.

The crisis will also give the Service the opportunity to further test some of its IT

upgrades: “We've scaled up virtual meeting rooms, to allow our senior managers to

continue business and to continue to plan. We foresee that in coming weeks we will

have to continue to provide court services, but not necessarily in the way we do

now. I think that, for example, prisons are very vulnerable. And I would foresee that

videoconferencing to prisons will be the norm rather than at the moment, where

it's optional”.

The service also upgraded its capacity for staff to work from home, doubling it in

the space of two weeks so that up to 450 judges and staff can do so if necessary.

Despite the very real concerns, Angela remains optimistic: “We’ve learned a lot from

the red weather alerts in recent years. We've dealt with other crises. We're adaptable

and we're good at that. With a shutdown, for example, for however long it might

be, we look at the impact of that on the economy, and the consequential impact on

the ability to deliver services. We may have to scale back our plans. But I would hope

that any dip would be a short-term one and that over the course of the 10-year

plan we'll be able to deliver”.

Public servant Angela joined the civil service in 1995 and was assigned to the courts,

working on the public counter in the central office for the first seven

years, before moving to probate. She was Registrar to the Master of

the High Court, and served as Non-Jury/Judicial Review Registrar for

a decade. A particularly proud moment was a move back to the central

office, where she had begun her career, but as office manager. A short

period with An Garda Síochána followed, before promotion to the

Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, where she spent a

year in the Government Reform Unit before taking up her current role.


LAW IN PRACTICE

Introduction The author has written two articles, published in The Bar Review, on the topic of

periodic payment orders (PPOs). The first article outlined developments leading to

the publication of the report of the Working Group on Medical Negligence and

Periodic Payments (the ‘Working Group Report’)1 prior to the introduction of a

legislative regime in this jurisdiction. The second article provided an appraisal of the

provisions of the Civil Liability (Amendment) Act, 2017 (‘CLA 2017’) (inserting a

new Part IVB into the Civil Liability Act, 1961 (‘CLA 1961’)) constituting that

legislative regime.2 A composite paper was also prepared and delivered at a Bar of

Ireland CPD conference on April 23, 2018.3

Since then, Part IVB of CLA 1961 was commenced4 and Order 1A of the Rules of

the Superior Courts was amended by S.I. no 430 of 2018: Rules of the Superior

Courts (Personal Injuries: Periodic Payment Orders) 2018 (‘the PPO Rules’). The

purpose of this article, however, is to analyse the decision of Murphy J. in Hegarty

(a minor) v HSE [2019] IEHC 788 (‘Hegarty’). The judgment questions whether a

PPO will ever be appropriate to meet a plaintiff’s needs, given the current indexation

provisions provided for in s. 51L CLA 1961 (the harmonised index of consumer prices

– HICP). This warrants some further development of the views expressed in the

second article5 and the completion of a trilogy.

Lump sum awards and interim lump sum awards Murphy J.’s decision in Hegarty provides a useful exposition of the common law

position in relation to damages,6 summarising that position as follows:

(i) a plaintiff who suffers catastrophic injuries is entitled to be compensated to the

extent of 100% for the loss and damage occasioned by the tortious wrong done

to them;

(ii) damages are paid by way of a once-off lump sum award calculated by reference

to the plaintiff’s lifetime needs established as a matter of probability;

(iii) where there is real uncertainty as to the nature and cost of a plaintiff’s future

needs, the court has an inherent jurisdiction to adjourn the consideration of a

plaintiff’s future needs and to make an interim award covering the plaintiff’s

established needs for the adjourned period – the interim award is a lump sum

award based on the plaintiff’s actual needs for the adjourned period, and can

include payment of other ascertained items, such as losses already incurred, and

a sum for general damages; and,

(iv) finally, the court notes that in this case and in others, payments on account

have been approved and made – these differ from an interim payment in that

they do not finally determine the damages due for a specific period, but are

rather a down payment against the ultimate liability, when ascertained; these

payments on account appear to the court to be within its common law

jurisdiction on the same basis that interim payments have been held to be.7

Interim lump sum payments developed in practice, by consent of the parties, in the

period pending implementation of the Working Group Report recommendations;

they allowed plaintiffs to suspend resolution of life-long needs, thereby providing

an opportunity to avail of PPO legislation, if favourable. In a series of cases, the

High Court expressed confidence that there existed inherent jurisdiction to adjourn

any aspect of a hearing if necessary to do justice between the parties, subject, if

necessary, to the grant of an interim award.8 In Miley (a minor) v Birthistle [2016]

IEHC 196, Barr J. identified a rule of court – Order 36, r. 4 RSC – as permitting the

Court, even in the absence of agreement between the parties, to adjourn a hearing

in exceptional circumstances on condition that the defendant pay an interim award

of damages covering established care needs in the interim period. Murphy J.

concluded, in Hegarty, that this common law position was not displaced by Part

Back to the future: PPOs and Hegarty v HSE A recent judgment questions whether, given the current indexation provisions, a periodic payment order could ever be appropriate to meet a plaintiff’s needs.

Alan Keating BL


IVB CLA 1961; rather, the PPO introduced by legislation provides an additional

option to the courts.9

The background to Hegarty and the issues addressed The plaintiff, born on December 10, 2014, was a minor and ward of court. He had

suffered catastrophic birth-related injuries due to the defendant’s wrongdoing

leading to cerebral palsy. The defendant admitted liability in May 2016 and, at

hearing on October 25, 2016, an interim settlement, pending enactment and

commencement of a statutory PPO regime, was agreed and ruled. The interim

settlement covered general damages, past special damages and future special

damages for the interim period, which interim period was to determine on October

22, 2019. As demonstrated, this was the typical course for catastrophic clinical

negligence cases of this nature in the period between the publication of the Working

Group Report and the commencement of CLA 2017. The plaintiff was taken into

wardship on December 7, 2016. The plaintiff’s future needs included care, assistive

technology, and aids, appliances and equipment.

In the interim, CLA 2017 was enacted (November 30, 2017) and commenced

(October 1, 2018), and the PPO Rules were promulgated (October 1, 2018).

It is a point of some importance that the plaintiff in Hegarty expressed a preference

not for a lump sum award or a PPO, but for a further interim arrangement; the

plaintiff’s medical experts expressed the unanimous view that it was too early in his

development to predict his needs for the purposes of a lump sum award or a PPO.10

The defendant’s position on this requires some scrutiny. Initially, the defendant

stated, by solicitor’s letter dated April 11, 2019, that, since commencement of the

PPO regime, it was the general approach of the State Claims Agency to seek a PPO

in all cases, rather than a further interim arrangement. As it turned out, the

defendant’s own independent experts agreed that it was indeed too early in the

plaintiff’s development to make an accurate prediction in relation to his long-term

outcome and his future therapeutic and care requirements.11 The defendant then

altered their position, on October 1, 2019, accepting that an interim lump sum

arrangement was in the best interest of the plaintiff.12

By that stage, the plaintiff had applied to the President of the High Court seeking

an order that the assessment hearing proceed on the basis of an interim lump sum.13

The President directed a trial before a judge of the High Court on October 22, 2019,

of the following issues:

(i) whether or not the 2017 Act ousts the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to assess

damages for a claimant’s needs on an interim basis without imposing the PPO

regime under the 2017 Act;

(ii) if jurisdiction is not ousted, a determination as to what are the best interests of

the plaintiff herein (interim three-year assessment or PPO);

(iii) whether the Court is precluded by the 2017 Act from fixing an increase other

than the amount specified in the HICP; and,

(iv) whether and to what extent the Court retains a jurisdiction to identify a means

by which indexation of the recurring payment can be achieved that would avoid

the risks of the recurring compensation falling behind having regard to wage

and medical inflation.

Following the President’s order, the defendant contended that the trial of these

issues had become moot,14 since the defendant now accepted that an interim

assessment was in the interests of the plaintiff. However, Murphy J. rejected this

submission. She held that the issues to be determined were wider than the initial

order (for an interim lump sum award) sought by the plaintiff.15 The Court observed

that, while the defendant agreed to a three-year adjournment and interim award,

“within a year or two the issue of a final lump sum payment or a further interim

payment or a Periodic Payment Order will once again raise its head”, and that it was

in that context “that the plaintiff’s lawyers have raised their fundamental objection

to the legislative PPO scheme, namely that the scheme as currently structured will

not provide the minor plaintiff with the 100% compensation for loss to which he is

entitled”.16 As regards issue (i), the Court concluded that Part IVB CLA 1961 does

not oust the Court’s jurisdiction to adjourn proceedings and grant an interim lump

sum award under Order 36, r. 4 RSC; an intention to do so was not expressed in Part

IVB CLA 1961.17 The PPO regime adds another string to the bow of the High Court

but, as a result of the matters discussed in relation to issue (ii), “it is a string which

may not be played as frequently as might have been hoped”.18 In this regard, the

Court concluded that a PPO was not in the best interests of the plaintiff.19 As regards

issue (iii), the Court concluded that the Court cannot apply an index other than that

fixed by Part IVB CLA 1961.20 Finally, in relation to issue (iii), the Court concluded

that there was no jurisdiction to temper the effects of the index stipulated by Part

IVB CLA 1961.21

The purpose of a PPO regime The purpose of a PPO regime is to provide total cover (the 100% principle),22 for

certain future costs, avoiding the limitations of a lump sum award, which arise from

the impossibility of predicting future needs and life expectancy.23 A one-off lump

sum could be spent long before death, with the result that serious debilitating needs

are unmet due to lack of funds. On the other hand, it could create a windfall for the

beneficiaries of the estate of a claimant who dies before predicted mortality.

Avoiding the need to predict the future creates a more certain and just outcome.

It is worth observing that the 100% principle applies equally to lump sum awards as

it does to PPOs.24 However, the removal of the need to predict the future should,

in a properly indexed PPO, mean that the 100% principle is more likely to be

achieved. Crucially, the court, in awarding compensation pursuant to the 100%

principle, must eschew any consideration of policy concerns held by defendants.25

The award of a PPO under Part IVB of CLA 1961 S. 51I CLA 1961 provides for the award of PPOs. S. 51I confers upon the court the

power to order that the whole or part of damages for personal injuries that relate to

the future medical treatment and care of the plaintiff and, if agreed, even future

loss of earnings (the PPO Heads of Loss) be paid in the form of a PPO. The wording

of the section suggests that it is only at the end of the full hearing that the court

will decide whether or not to make a PPO, and that no formal application by either

party would be required for the court to have jurisdiction, and this would appear to

be supported by the PPO Rules.26

S. 51I(2) CLA 1961 provides that in deciding whether to grant a PPO, the court shall

have regard to the best interests of the plaintiff27 and the circumstances of the

case.28 The circumstances of the case include the nature of the injuries suffered by

the plaintiff29 and the form of award that would, in the court’s view, best meet the

needs of the plaintiff.30 The court is to have regard, inter alia, to the form of award

preferred by a plaintiff and the reasons for that preference, financial advice received

by the plaintiff in relation to the form of the award, and the form of award preferred

by a defendant and the reasons for that preference.31

LAW IN PRACTICE

43


LAW IN PRACTICE

Experience from England and Wales demonstrates that the litigants’ preferences will

yield to the court’s view of the best interests of the plaintiff. Thus, while the

preference of the parties is to be taken into account, it is not conclusive, and the

preference of the plaintiff is not to be taken as being of greater value to that of the

defendant.32

The author is not aware of any robust economic analysis of the decisions defendants

make in catastrophic injury cases. It will be recalled that, in Hegarty, the opening

position of the State Claims Agency was that, as a matter of generality, it would

seek, in all cases, a PPO instead of an interim lump sum award. This position could

not admit of any consideration of the best interests of the plaintiff. It was made

purely to safeguard the interests of the State Claims Agency.

S. 51I CLA 1961 effectively creates a remedies competition,33 an issue we will return

to below. For now, consider the consequences for a plaintiff of an improvident PPO

being awarded by the court under s. 51I CLA 1961, coupled with the unavailability

of an appeal for the exercise of that discretion.34 This legislative bind requires

heightened judicial vigilance as to the reasons for any preference expressed by a

defendant.

Indexation The indexation of the annual amount stipulated in a PPO is all important. If the

index is improvident relative to inflation in the annual cost of PPO Heads of Loss,

then the purpose of the PPO regime is hopelessly undermined. Acknowledgment

that the 100% principle was the very purpose of the PPO regime in England and

Wales35 is what led the Court of Appeal to exercise discretion conferred by

legislation36 to disapply the default index and apply an index more reflective of

inflation specific to the provision of care.37

A detailed analysis of section 51L CLA 1961 is contained in the second article, which

the reader can access, if needs be. In summary, the appraisal in the second article is

not positive due largely to:

(i) the imposition by s. 51L CLA 1961 of an improvident default index (by which

the annual amount stipulated in a PPO was to increase to keep pace with

inflation);38

(ii) the concentration of the power to alter that index in the executive and the

legislature;39

(iii) the exclusion of restitutio in integrum and the 100% principle from the matters

to be considered by the executive in reviewing the appropriateness of that index

and/or deciding to alter it;40

(iv) the lack of any power conferred on the courts to alter the index;41 and,

(v) the restricted right of appeal from a decision to award a PPO subject to the

default index.42

44

http://www.westlaw.ie/


LAW IN PRACTICE

The result is legislation that is practically stillborn. The most dispiriting feature of all

of this is that it was quite intentional. The plaintiff’s lawyers, in Hegarty, had

obtained a copy of a report from Towers Watson provided to the Government in

March 2014. That report recommended the Consumer Price Index (CPI)/HICP plus

a percentage indexation, which percentage indexation was never implemented.43

An inter-departmental working group was then established and produced a report

that was replete with references to the policy objective of ensuring certainty for

defendants and had nothing to do with the 100% principle or restitutio in integrum.44

The policy objectives of the State Claims Agency to achieve certainty in the projected

amounts of annual payments were permitted to negate the very purpose of a PPO

regime and to trump more existential concerns of claimants injured by the

wrongdoing of others.

Interaction between the decision to award a PPO S. 51I and the index prescribed by 51L CLA 1961 There is a clear linkage of the award of a PPO and the viability of the index

prescribed by the PPO legislation. Put simply, if the court is convinced that the index

is so improvident as not to be in the plaintiff’s best interests, or not to best meet

the needs of a plaintiff, a lump sum will be awarded. In A v Powys Local Health

Board [2007] EWHC 2996 (QB) (A v Powys), Lloyd-Jones J. awarded a lump sum

because the claimant was in the process of moving to Ireland and the evidence was

that there was no earnings series appropriate to use for indexing carers’ earnings in

Ireland. While this decision predates CLA 2017 by a decade and there may now be

appropriate earnings series in this jurisdiction, they have not been adopted by s.

51L CLA 1961. The judgment in A v Powys therefore exemplifies the approach the

Irish courts could take in deciding whether or not to make an award of damages by

way of PPO linked to the HICP.45 In a paper delivered at a Bar of Ireland CPD seminar

in April 2018, the author suggested, in the light of A v Powys, that when the courts

in Ireland eventually come to consider whether or not to award a PPO under the

new legislation, it was certainly conceivable, in the context of the index currently

stipulated, that a court would conclude that a PPO would not be in a plaintiff’s best

interests. In this context, it was suggested by the author that there was a real danger

that the Irish PPO regime would itself become “a dead letter”. As will be seen, in

Hegarty the courts did eventually come to consider this question.

Hegarty and indexation The plaintiff had adduced evidence on this issue from a doctor in actuarial

mathematics, an actuary, a labour economist, an economist specialising in

micro-economics and a financial adviser.46 The defendant put up no evidence.47 The

Court described as “overwhelming” the evidence that indexation of periodic

payments by reference to the HICP would result in under compensation of a plaintiff,

would not provide 100% compensation for future costs, and that the PPO should

be linked to a wage-based index to ensure full compensation.48

Dr Shane Whelan confirmed the likelihood that wages would rise by 1.5% per annum

higher than inflation in the long term, and that the cost of medical treatment, and

aids and appliances associated with care, would continue to rise by 1.5% per annum

above inflation. Thus, a PPO adjusted annually with reference to the HICP would

transfer to the plaintiff the risk that the cost of care, etc., exceeds the payments

made under the PPO. Future payments under the PPO increasing in line with the

HICP would lag behind the actual increase in such costs and loss by about 1.5% per

annum. The evidence established that “by age 50, a periodic payment order linked

to the HICP index would only meet 48% of the plaintiff’s annual care costs”.49

The expert labour economist, Prof. Victoria Wass, assessed the process by which the

State arrived at its decision to adopt the HICP, concluding that the dominant purpose

behind its adoption was to minimise volatility in the amount of annual payments.50

The report of the interdepartmental working group referred to above was clearly

motivated by the need to provide certainty to defendants, a policy approach which,

Murphy J. noted, “was firmly rejected by the High Court and the Court of Appeal

in the Russell case. The court’s duty is to provide 100% compensation to a

catastrophically injured plaintiff, regardless of policy concerns”.51

Prof. Wass suggested that the Earnings Hours and Employment Costs Survey

(EHECS) carried out quarterly by the Central Statistics Office was an appropriate

measure. While it was rejected by the interdepartmental working group, it has been

used in England and Wales in the award of PPOs, under the Damages Act, 1996, to

Irish resident claimants.52 Prof. John Kay, economist, suggested indexing care costs

to average earnings and medical costs to either the CPI or the HICP plus 3%.53 The

evidence of the actuary and financial adviser further supported the criticism of the

HICP. Murphy J. concluded that no judge, charged with protecting the best interests

of a plaintiff, which is the first requirement for the exercise of a court’s discretion

under the legislative scheme, could approve a PPO adjusted by reference to the

HICP.54 While this appears a little too emphatic, it was clearly based on the evidence

that was before the Court, which overwhelmingly deprecated the HICP as an

appropriate index for a PPO. It will be recalled that the defendant put up no evidence

and the Court was not addressed upon the viability of a PPO relative to a one-off

lump sum award. It simply did not arise. Therefore, the Court’s finding was based

upon the evidence before it. In considering the “financial advice received by the

plaintiff in respect of the form of the award” as required by s. 51I(2)(b)(ii), the Court

concluded that “on the basis of the expert evidence before the court, … no

competent financial expert would recommend a periodic payment order linked to

the harmonised index of consumer prices to provide for the future care needs of a

plaintiff”.55 Again, while this conclusion appears a little too general, it was made on

the financial evidence available to it, all of which went one way. The ultimate

assessment was in the following pithy terms:

“In its current form therefore, the legislation is regrettably, a dead letter. It is not in

the best interests of a catastrophically injured plaintiff to apply for a PPO under the

current legislative scheme”.56

The description of the current PPO legislation as a dead letter is surely correct, save

for the improbable scenario where the parties consent to adopt an index taking

account of wage inflation trends rather than general inflation.57

The remedies competition under Part IVB CLA 1961 – back to the future? S. 51I CLA 1961 will require the court to decide whether to award a PPO or a lump

sum. A PPO linked to an acceptable index should, save in exceptional circumstances,

be in the plaintiff’s best interest and better meet their needs. Where, however, the

landscape is distorted by a clearly improvident index that has no place in a PPO

regime, the result is that the parties are led inexorably back to arguing about life

expectancy.

To take but one example, the financial evidence could conceivably establish that,

for a limited period at least, a PPO linked to the HICP, while not offering 100%

cover, may offer better cover than a lump sum award. The plaintiff may argue that


LAW IN PRACTICE

References

1. Report published on October 29, 2010. 2. Keating, A. Slow change. The Bar Review 2018; 23 (1): 17. 3. Bar of Ireland CPD, Periodic Payment Orders, Alan Keating BL. The paper

may be accessed via the member’s section of the Law Library website, or via the following link: https://members.lawlibrary.ie/app/uploads/Secure/PPO-Legislation-Final.pdf.

4. CLA 2017 was enacted on November 22, 2017, and commenced on October 1, 2018, by S.I. 377 of the 2018 Civil Liability (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Parts 1, 2 and 3) (Commencement) Order 2018.

5. As will be seen, the views in the second article need not be reviewed. 6. Hegarty (a minor) v HSE [2019] IEHC 788, per Murphy J. at §§ 33 to

46. In this regard, see Russell (a minor) v HSE [2016] 3 IR 427, per Irvine J. at §§ 5 to 16, and again at §§ 64 and 66.

7. at §47. 8. Corroon (a minor) v Pillay’s General Hospital Limited (unreported,

Barton J., October 29, 2014); Grace O’Neill (a minor) v National Maternity Hospital [2015] IEHC 160; North Western Health Board v W. (H) [2001] IESC 9; Gillick (a minor) v Children’s University Hospital (unreported, High Court, April 12, 2016); and, O’Mahony (a person of unsound mind not so found) v Southern Health Board (unreported, Moriarty J., November 7, 2014).

9. at §§ 56 to 59 relying upon McEnry v Sheahan [2019] IESC 64, A.M. v HSE [2019] IESC 3, and s. 51I(1) and (2) CLA 1961.

10. at § 5 and §§10 to 14 (in which the evidence was recited). 11. at § 15 and 60. 12. at § 23. 13. at §§ 6 to 9 and §§ 12 to 14. The President was exercising his

supervisory capacity in wardship matters. 14. at §§ 15 to 30. 15. at § 31. 16. at § 61. 17. at §§ 56 to 59 relying upon McEnry v Sheahan [2019] IESC 64, A.M. v

HSE [2019] IESC 3, and the discretionary nature of the power to grant a PPO under s. 51I(1) and (2) CLA 1961.

18 at § 59. 19. at §§ 60 to 76. 20. at §§ 77 to 82. 21. at §§ 83 to 84. 22. Flora v Wakom (Heathrow) Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 2207; [2006] EWCA Civ

1103, per Brooke L.J. at §§27 to 29; and, Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust v Tompstone [2008] 1 WLR 2207, per Waller L.J. at §§ 34 and 35.

23. Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1980] AC 174, per Scarman L.J.; Russell (a minor) v Health Service Executive [2016] IECA 236, per Irvine J. at § [7]. For academic commentary, see McMahon and Binchy, Law of Torts (4th ed.), para 44.99 to 44.100; McGregor on Damages, Sweet & Maxwell (2nd ed., 2018) at para 40-004; and, Boylan, A Practical Guide to Medical Negligence Litigation, Bloomsbury 2016, at page 242.

24. Russell (a minor) v HSE [2016] 3 IR 427, per Irvine J. at §§ 64 to 72; and, Hegarty (a minor) v HSE [2019] IEHC 788, per Murphy J. at §§ 33 to 46, and again at §47(I).

25. Russell (a minor) v HSE [2016] 3 IR 427, per Irvine J. at §§ 64 to 72. 26. See Order 1A, rule 15 RSC (inserted by the PPO Rules) – it is where

the court has made a determination to award damages that the court can then proceed to deal with the PPO issue by way of a separate and subsequent hearing, if necessary.

27. S. 55I(2)(a) CLA 1961. 28. S. 55I(2)(b) CLA 1961. 29. S. 55I(2)(b)(i) CLA 1961. 30. S. 55I(2)(b)(ii) CLA 1961. 31. S. 55I(2)(b)(ii)(I) to (V) CLA 1961. 32. Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust v Thompstone [2008]

1 WLR 2207 para 108; see also Morton v Portal Ltd [2010] EWHC 1804 (QB).

33. S 51N CLA 1961 restricts the right of appeal from a decision under, inter alia, s. 51I (whether or not to grant a PPO) to an appeal on a point of law only. Given that the court’s decision under s. 51I would be the product of findings of fact based upon factual and opinion evidence, it appears vanishingly unlikely that a decision whether or not to grant a PPO would be the subject of an appeal.

34. S. 51N CLA 1961. 35. Damages Act, 1996, s. 2 as amended by the Courts Act, 2003, s. 100. 36. Damages Act, 1996, s. 2(8) as amended by the Courts Act, 2003, s. 100. 37. Flora v Wakom (Heathrow) Limited [2007] 1 WLR 482; and, Tameside

and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust v Tompstone [2008] 1 WLR 2207. 38. S. 51L(1) CLA 1961. 39. S. 51L(2) to (7) CLA 1961. 40. S. 51L(5) CLA 1961. 41. S. 51L(2) to (7) CLA 1961. The absence of any role for the court in this

jurisdiction was acknowledged in Hegarty, per Murphy J. at §§77 to 82. 42. S. 51N CLA 1961. 43. See Hegarty at § 12. 44. See Hegarty at § 68. 45. A v Powys Local Health Board [2007] EWHC 2996 (QB), para 20 to 26. 46. at § 16 to 21. 47. at § 22. 48. at § 63. 49. The evidence of Dr Shane Whelan FFA FSAI is set out at § 64 and §

65. 50. at § 67 where the court recites the evidence of Prof. Victoria Wass. 51. at § 68. 52. at § 69 and 70. 53. at § 71. 54. at § 73. 55. at § 74. 56. at § 73 and 74. 57. Hegarty, at § 75 and 76.

this is irrelevant because life expectancy exceeds the limited period during which

the HICP-linked PPO could be said to be more advantageous. The defendant may

argue that, in fact, life expectancy is limited to that very period. In order for the

court to determine the issue, it would first have to determine the issue of life

expectancy because it would not be possible to compare a lump sum with a PPO

without doing so. The very possibility that the court would need to resolve life

expectancy brings it back to predicting the future in deciding whether to grant a

PPO. This is the ultimate failure, all due to a default index known to have been

improvident but adopted out of policy concerns to ensure budgetary certainty for

defendants.

Conclusion Hegarty confirms that the only way the courts can temper the negative effects of

the indexation provisions is to exercise the discretion it does have and refuse to

grant a PPO at all. In the face of anticipated and quite proper judicial nullification

of that sort, Part IVB CLA 1961 is rightly described by Murphy J. as a dead letter.


“Nothing less than poetry could suffice to describe the

barrister who graced the legal bench in Kilmainham Court

last week. ‘A thing of beauty is a joy forever’ is the phrase

that came to mind. The beautiful young man was a joy to

behold. His curly hair flowed in waves to the nape of his

neck. His snowy high-collared starched shirt provided a

brilliantly white background to his softly glowing burgundy tie. A gold chain across

the vest drew the admiring eye to the superb cut of his three-piece suit.”

Nell McCafferty, in chronicling proceedings in the District Court in the 1980s for

The Irish Times, did not name the dashing lawyer who bravely fought a hopeless

case of larceny before an unsympathetic beak. However, when she noted our hero

placing “a foot on the bench, his back to the witness, affording us a full view of his

magnificence, his very shoe evoked appreciation – it was black and polished to the

highest degree of reflection”, there could be no doubt that it was Adrian Mannering

who had caught the discerning eye of the renowned journalist. A few years after his

service in the mechanic corps of the RAF No. 1 Squadron Norfolk, in addition to

working on Harrier jump-jets, he had learned how to perfectly polish his shoes.

Born in Dublin in 1948, Adrian was the third of four children of Susanne and Harry

Mannering. Having shown early academic promise, Adrian was awarded a scholarship

to Sandymount High School. Thereafter, with no realistic path to university, he

enlisted with the Royal Air Force with the hope of availing of the educational

opportunities that would open up. Deployments to Libya and Norway followed

before Adrian demobilised to enrol in the University of Sussex at Brighton, where

he completed a degree in economic history. A gifted singer, songwriter and

storyteller, Adrian was a natural fit in Brighton’s music scene. After completing

college, he went to New York, where for a spell he joined the Greenwich Village folk

scene, subsequently returning to Dublin on a wave of songwriting and poetry. He

recommenced study, first at UCD and then at the King’s Inns, where he displayed

his oratory prowess to win the Kenny Gold Medal for Legal Debate in 1979.

Fierce advocate

He was called to The Bar of Ireland in Michaelmas Term, 1980, and devilled with

Denis Vaughan Buckley (who features along with his “Viking children” in Adrian’s

song On Leighlin Road, a soulful paean to Phil Lynott). Adrian soon built a reputation

as a fierce advocate, with a bright intellect and a superb recall of detail. With his

effortless charm and his forceful personality, he soon became well known throughout

the courts. He positioned himself as a progressive outsider, beyond the mainstream

political circuits, and a staunch opponent of conservative views and laws. But Adrian

was also sensitive to the problems affecting his beloved Dublin; he undertook pro

bono work and many difficult cases involving social injustice. As he became more

accomplished and experienced over the years, he remained an enthusiastic

proponent of the independent Bar, and to that end gave freely of his time and

knowledge to many young devils and barristers starting out in their careers, many

of whom recall to this day the depth of his kindness. Later in his career, when briefed

in the criminal courts by both the DPP and defence solicitors, his extensive command

of the English language was unleashed on many a Dublin jury to great effect. His

closing speeches were intense, far from formulaic, never boring or predictable, and

would often contain a splattering of ‘Dublinese’ that Joyce himself would have been

proud to pen. He took silk in Hilary Term 2004, and while he continued a wide

practice, he retained his love of the criminal law. Throughout his career, Adrian was

filled with political and social idealism, honed in no small part in a family household

that prided itself on its Clann na Poblachta connections, and which hosted many a

heated meeting, resulting in Adrian developing a particularly strong pride for his

country, “plucky little Éire”. He possessed a genuine love of his city, which

manifested itself in many diverse ways, from his one-man campaign against the ugly

proliferation of superfluous street signs and poles, to the planting of trees in the

grounds of the King’s Inns, to the lyrics of his songs with their references to Dublin

Bus numbers and blackbirds singing by the Grand Canal.

Adrian met Ellen Nippolt in the early 1980s, an architectural student and visual artist

from Portland, Oregon. Their relationship was electric, they soon wed, and their son

Robert soon followed. The whirlwind romance didn’t last, with Ellen going back to

America with their son within a few years. Despite the distance, Adrian remained a

committed and loving father, and was delighted when Robert returned to Dublin to

live with him in the summer of 1997.

A life well lived

When Adrian retired in 2010, the Bar lost a significant thread of colour and character

from the fabric of its rich tapestry. But thankfully in his retirement years, he remained

in touch with many of his colleagues, always attending the big nights, such as

benchings in the King’s Inns. A passionate gardener, in retirement Adrian turned his

small garden in Harold’s Cross into a wonderful oasis where he spent a lot of his

time. He could be seen on his bicycle across Dublin every day (often with various

pots and plants precariously balanced on a plank of wood on the back carrier). He

continued to play guitar and sing in venues across the city, including every week at

the Teachers’ Club. As Robert told the assembled friends in Mount Jerome in January

on the occasion of the celebration of Adrian’s life, while he passed suddenly, he did

so gracefully and effortlessly in his beloved garden. A long, drawn-out decline was

not for Adrian and would have been anathema to his intense and passionate way of

living. Thus it was noteworthy that the last book he was reading was King Lear, a

play replete with the theme of ageing. Perhaps we might take some small comfort

on the loss of a great friend, that like King Lear, Adrian would: “hate him that would

upon the rack of this tough world stretch him out longer”.

Adrian was a generous man who thought the world of those he knew. His

dyed-in-the-wool romanticism left a huge impression on whomever he met. He was

a great man and a true Dub, and he will be missed by all his friends and colleagues

at the Bar.

Poet and lyricist to the end, pinned to Adrian’s dry-cleaned and neatly put away

frock coat and silk gown was a slip of paper declaring:

“Here, now, to the end we come,

No more pleading, all is done,

No more swearing, up and down,

Left behind, both wig and gown”.

PC and RM

OBITUARY

Adrian Mannering SC

UPDATEThe Bar Review, journal of The Bar of Ireland

LEGAL

Volume 25 Number 2

April 2020

A directory of legislation, articles and acquisitions received in the Law Library from January 17, 2020, to March 12, 2020 Judgment information supplied by Justis Publishing Ltd. Edited by Vanessa Curley, Susan Downes and Clare O’Dwyer, Law Library, Four Courts.

ANIMALS Statutory instruments Animal health and welfare (rabies) regulations 2020 – SI 20/2020 Destructive Insects and Pests Acts 1958 and 1991 (pre-notification) order 2020 – SI 30/2020 BANKING Order for possession – Indenture of mortgage and charge – Loans – Appellants seeking to appeal against an order for possession – Whether the defendants had raised any arguable grounds of defence – [2019] IEHC 870 – 19/12/2019 KBC Bank Ireland Plc v Wilson Injunctive relief – Trespass – Property – Applicant seeking interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from continuing their trespass at a property – Whether the defendants were entitled to the protections of the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears – [2020] IEHC 28 – 17/01/2020 Murphy v Doran Well charging order – Order for sale – Loan agreements – Plaintiff seeking a well charging order and an order for sale in respect of certain lands – Whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief in respect of the first of three loan agreements – [2020] IEHC 85 – 24/02/2020 Promontoria (Oyster) DAC v Greene Guarantee – Facility letter – Plenary hearing – Plaintiff seeking sum against the defendants – Whether any ambiguity or lack of clarity surrounding the guarantee ought to be resolved in favour of the guarantor – [2020] IEHC 44 – 23/01/2020 Stapleford Finance DAC v Tuthill

Order for possession – Mortgage – Limitation period – Plaintiff seeking an order for possession – Whether the proceedings had been brought within time – [2020] IEHC 50 – 10/02/2020 WF Shap (Ireland) Ltd v Fingleton (as administrator ad litem of the estate of Laurence Johnson deceased) Articles Breslin, J. Central Bank’s statutory duty of confidentiality. Commercial Law Practitioner 2020; (27) (2): 27 BANKRUPTCY Bankruptcy – Sale of property – Sanction – Appellant seeking to appeal against the order sanctioning the sale of her family home – Whether the order made was disproportionate – [2020] IECA 2 – 23/01/2020 Patrick J. Daly (a bankrupt) and Anne Daly (a discharged bankrupt) CHILDREN Childcare proceedings – Dismissal of charges – Injunctive relief – Appellant seeking to appeal from orders made ex parte in the High Court – Whether sufficient grounds had been identified – [2018] IECA 415 – 26/07/2020 A.R. v DPP Statutory instruments Childcare Support Act 2018 (calculation of amount of financial support) (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 33/2020 COMPANY LAW Liquidation – Committee of inspection – Extension of time – Appellant seeking directions as to the membership and composition of the committee of inspection – Whether an extension of time in which to comply with the requirements of s. 681 of the Companies Act 2014 ought to be granted – [2020] IEHC 57 – 18/02/2020 De Lacy v Coyle Disqualification – Companies Act 2014 – Declaratory relief – Applicant seeking a declaration restricting the respondent

from being appointed or acting as a director or other officer of any company for a period of five years, unless that company meets the requirements of s. 819(3) of the Companies Act 2014 – Whether the respondent had demonstrated that he acted honestly and responsibly in relation to the affairs of the company – [2020] IEHC 82 – 24/02/2020 RHS Energy Ltd (in liquidation) v Diaz and Palmer Statutory instruments Statistics (business expenditure on research and development survey) order 2020 – SI 3/2020 Companies Act 2014 (procedures governing the conduct of section 934 investigations) regulations 2020 – SI 16/2020 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Deportation – Points of law of exceptional public importance – Constitutional rights – Applicants seeking to challenge deportation order – Whether the approach required by Gorry v The Minister for Justice and Equality [2017] IECA 282 in respect of constitutional rights under Art. 41 of the Bunreacht requires the respondent to justify any interference with the protection of the institution of the family such that it is insufficient to assert that there is a risk of future criminal activity in the absence of any current evidential basis for such an assertion – [2020] IEHC 67 – 18/02/2020 Ishola v The Minister for Justice and Equality CONTRACT Contract – Dispute – Independent expert – Appellant seeking to appeal against Court of Appeal judgment – Whether a court can be asked in advance to determine questions of law which may arise in the course of the resolution of a dispute – [2020] IESC 1 – 22/01/2020 Dunnes Stores v McCann Contract – Sale of land – Specific performance – Appellant seeking to appeal against the order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land – Whether performance of the contract was impossible by virtue of the

boundary dispute that existed in relation to the property – [2020] IECA 3 – 22/01/2020 Leggett v Crowley Contracts – Termination – Validity – Appellant seeking a declaration that contracts had not been terminated – Whether notices of termination were valid – [2020] IECA 18 – 03/02/2020 O’Leary v Volkswagen Group Ireland Ltd COPYRIGHT Library acquisitions O’Flanagan, M. Photography and the Law: Rights and Restrictions. Abingdon: Routledge, 2019 – N112.2.C5 COSTS Costs – Taxation – Discovery – Appellant seeking to appeal against an order of Noonan J. – Whether the trial judge erred in law – [2019] IECA 325 – 18/12/2019 Doyle v Guardian Group Ltd Security for costs – Declaratory relief – Breach of bye-laws – Defendant seeking security for costs – Whether there were specific circumstances which ought to cause the court to exercise its discretion not to make the order sought – [2020] IEHC 62 – 18/02/2020 Er Travel Ltd v Dublin Airport Authority AKA DAA Plc Costs – Personal insolvency arrangement – Personal Insolvency Act 2012 s. 115A – Personal insolvency practitioner seeking an order for costs against the objecting creditor bank – Whether the bank should be immune from costs in respect of the appeal – [2020] IEHC 102 – 02/03/2020 Forde Egan (A Debtor), In re Estate – Shares – Legal costs – Parties seeking determination of issues – Whether the interest and penalties arising on the settlement of the revenue liabilities of the estate are expenses of the estate – [2020] IEHC 88 – 25/02/2020 P.D. v D.D. Recusal – Costs – Confirmation – Appellant seeking to appeal against High Court orders – Whether the judge ought to recuse himself from dealing with the confirmation application – [2020] IECA 1 – 21/01/2020

AGRICULTURE BANKING / EDUCATION / COMPETITIOLAW / EXTRADITIONLAW/CONSTITUTIONAL LAWFAMILY LAW/ENERGY/ARBITRATION/EQUALITYINSOLVENCY / CITIZENSHIP / DAMAGES EDUCATIONDAMAGES / BUILDING LAW / CHILDREN / COMMERCIALAW / COMPANYLAW DEFAMATION COURTS/ EVIDENC/ DATA PROTECTION/EUROPEAN UNION/ CONTRACTC O P Y R I G H T C R I M I N A L L A W E N V I R O N M E N T ALAW/JUDGESPEDRE/INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGYEMPOYMENTLAWAGRICULTURE BANKING / EDUCATIO

LEGAL UPDATE : June 2019 19LEGAL UPDATE : June 2019AGRICULTURE BANKING / EDUCATION / COMPETITLAW / FAMILY LAW / ENERGY / ARBITRATION / EQEDUCATION AMAGES BUILDING LAW CHILDREN

viiiLEGAL UPDATE : April 2020

Permanent TSB Group Holdings Plc, Permanent TSB Group Holdings Plc_2 Costs – Discovery – Injunction – Defendant seeking costs – Whether there should be an order as to costs – [2020] IEHC 26 – 27/01/2020 Ryanair v Bellew Costs – Liability – Wardship – Plaintiff seeking costs – Whether the defendant must be liable not merely for the costs of the application to take the plaintiff into wardship outside the jurisdiction but also for all costs incidental to that – [2020] IEHC 78 – 24/02/220 Tesch (a minor) v Dublin Bus Costs – Motion for judgment in default of appearance – Solicitor and client basis – Plaintiffs seeking an order for the costs of the motion for judgment in default of appearance against the defendant – Whether the costs of the motion should be awarded on the solicitor and client basis – [2020] IEHC 13 – 17/01/2020 Trafalgar Developments Ltd v Mazepin CORONER Statutory instruments Coroners (Amendment) Act 2019 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 12/2020 Rules of the Superior Courts (coroners) 2020 – SI 43/2020 Coroners (Amendment) Act 2019 (commencement) (no. 2) order 2020 – SI 51/2020 COURTS Library acquisitions Blackhall Publishing. Blackhall’s Circuit Court Rules: updated to 1 January 2019 (11th ed.). Dublin: Lonsdale Law Publishing, 2019 – N363.1.C5 Blackhall Publishing. Blackhall’s District Court rules: updated to 1 January 2019 (12th ed.). Dublin: Lonsdale Law Publishing, 2019 – N363.2.C5 Blackhall Publishing. Blackhall’s Superior Court rules: updated to 1 January 2019 (12th ed.). Dublin: Lonsdale Law Publishing, 2019 – N361.C5 CRIMINAL LAW Criminal proceedings – Prosecution – Prohibition – Appellant seeking to appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court prohibiting the appellant from further prosecuting criminal proceedings – Whether the High Court was in error in prohibiting the continuation of the prosecution – [2020] IECA 6 – 24/01/2020 A.T. v DPP Conviction – Burglary – Unfair trial – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether the trial was unfair or unsatisfactory – [2019] IECA 353 – 19/07/2019 DPP v Bob

Sentencing – Dangerous driving causing death – Uncertainty – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether the judge’s sentencing remarks clarified on what basis she approached sentencing – [2019] IECA 344 – 20/12/2019 DPP v Byrne Sentencing – Drug offences – Undue leniency – Appellant seeking review of sentence – Whether sentence was unduly lenient – [2019] IECA 351 – 15/07/2019 Director of Public Prosecutions v Callaghan Sentencing – Violent disorder – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe – [2019] IECA 357 – 12/11/2019 DPP v Carlisle Conviction – Murder – Diminished responsibility – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether the trial judge erred in law and on the facts in failing to charge the jury adequately or at all in relation to the respondent’s burden of proof on the issue of intoxication – [2019] IEHC 314 – 16/12/2019 DPP v Cawley Sentencing – Assault – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe – [2019] IECA 343 – 20/12/2019 DPP v Conway Sentencing – Rape – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking review of sentence – Whether sentence was unduly lenient – [2020] IECA 40 – 18/02/2020 DPP v D.F. Sentencing – Burglary – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentences – Whether sentences were unduly severe – [2020] IECA 15 – 30/01/2020 DPP v Delaney Sentencing – Harassment – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe – [2019] IECA 350 – 02/07/2019 DPP v Doherty Appeal – Severity of Sentence – Manslaughter – Sentencing Guidelines – Mitigating Factors – [2015] IECA 6 – 19/02/2020 DPP v Donohoe Conviction – Murder – Intoxication – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether there was an incorrect direction by the trial judge on intoxication – [2019] IESC 98 – 20/12/2019 DPP v Eadon Crime and sentencing – Sexual offences – Rape and sexual violence – Guidance as to appropriate sentence – Jurisdiction of the Court – [2020] IESC 5 – 26/02/2020 DPP v F.E.

Crime and sentencing – Manslaughter – Sentencing – Application for review on grounds of undue leniency – [2019] IECA 359 – 02/12/2019 DPP v Ferris Sentencing – Sexual assault – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking review of sentence – Whether sentence was unduly lenient – [2019] IECA 362 – 06/12/2019 DPP v Fitzgerald Crime and sentencing – Sexual offences – Sexual assault – Appeal against severity of sentence – [2019] IECA 340 – 24/10/2019 DPP v Flaherty Conviction – Threatening to kill – Evidence – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether the evidence had sufficient cogency and was of sufficient quality to allow the case to go to a jury – [2019] IECA 302 - 03/12/2019 DPP v G (H) Sentencing – Rape – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe – [2019] IECA 355 – 15/10/2019 DPP v H (J) Crime and sentencing – Robbery – Stealing of gambling proceeds – Appeal against sentence – [2019] IECA 358 – 14/11/2019 DPP v Hanley Conviction – Providing assistance to an unlawful organisation – Unsatisfactory trial – Appellants seeking to appeal against convictions – Whether the appellants’ trials were satisfactory – [2020] IECA 38 – 06/02/2020 DPP v Hannaway and ors Sentencing – Providing assistance to an unlawful organisation – Severity of sentence – Appellants seeking to appeal against severity of sentences – Whether sentences were unduly severe – [2020] IECA 39 – 14/02/2020 DPP v Hannaway and ors Sentencing – Drug offences – Severity of sentences – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentences – Whether sentences were unduly severe – [2019] IECA 305 – 05/12/2019 DPP v Hill Sentencing – Child cruelty – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking review of sentences – Whether sentences were unduly lenient – [2019] IECA 352 – 15/07/2019 DPP v K (K) Sentencing – Money laundering – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking review of sentence – Whether sentence was unduly lenient – [2020] IECA 13 – 27/01/2020 DPP v Kavanagh Sentencing - Violent disorder - Undue leniency - Applicant seeking review of sentence - Whether sentence was unduly lenient - [2019] IECA 356 - 21/10/2019 DPP v McDonagh

Crime and sentencing – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Diminished responsibility – Alcohol dependence syndrome – [2019] IECA 298 – 28/11/2019 DPP v McDonald Crime and sentencing – Theft – Multiple counts of theft and corruption – Sentence – Whether sentence unduly lenient – [2019] IECA 316 – 04/12/2019 DPP v O’Halloran Sentencing – Assault causing serious harm – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe – [2019] IECA 354 – 22/07/2019 DPP v O’Sullivan Sentencing – Rape – Totality principle – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the principle of totality [2019] IECA 348 – 19/12/2019 DPP v S (C) Sentencing – Assault causing harm – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking review of sentence – Whether sentence was unduly lenient – [2020] IECA 11 – 20/01/2020 DPP v Tobin Crime and sentencing – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Admission of evidence – Burden of proof in respect of provocation defence – [2019] IECA 297 – 26/11/2019 DPP v Walsh Conviction – Murder – Provocation – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether the trial judge failed to adequately charge the jury – [2019] IECA 342 – 20/12/2019 DPP v Webster Sentencing – Drug offences – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking review of sentences – Whether sentences were unduly lenient – [2020] IECA 10 – 16/10/2020 DPP v Witkowski and Sowa Conviction – Order of certiorari – Plea – Applicant seeking order of certiorari quashing conviction and sentence – Whether the applicant was convicted of and sentenced in respect of a matter when he had not entered a plea – [2019] IECA 322 – 20/12/2019 Maher v DPP Articles Delahunt, M. The trial of children in the Central Criminal Court. The Bar Review 2020; (25) (1): 19 Murphy, C. Should the defence of provocation be available to battered women who kill? University College Dublin Law Review 2019; (19): 72 Reynolds, C. The role of public interest law in Irish drug reform. University College Dublin Law Review 2019; (19): 93

20 LEGAL UPDATE : June 2019 20LEGAL UPDATE : June 2019

LEGAL UPDATE LEGAL UPDATE

LEGAL UPDATE : April 2020

LEGAL UPDATE

AGRICULTURE BANKING / EDUCATION / COMPETITLAW / FAMILY LAW / ENERGY / ARBITRATION / EQEDUCATION / DAMAGES / BUILDING LAW / CHILDRENCOURTS / EVIDENCE / DATA PROTECTION / EUROPEANENVIRONMENTAL LAW / JUDGES / PROCEDURE / IN

AGRICULTURE BANKING / EDUCATION / COMPETITLAW / FAMILY LAW / ENERGY / ARBITRATION / EQEDUCATION AMAGES BUILDING LAW CHILDREN

ix

Statutory Instruments Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 (section 42) (restrictive measures concerning certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida organisations) (no. 6) regulations 2019 – SI 695/2019 Criminal Records (Exchange of Information) Act 2019 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 37/2020 DAMAGES Damages – Personal injuries – Aggravated damages – Plaintiff seeking aggravated damages – Whether this was an appropriate case in which to make an award of aggravated damages – [2020] IEHC 11 – 17/01/2020 Doyle v Donovan Damages – Personal injuries – Loss – Plaintiff seeking damages for personal injuries, loss and damage – Whether the defendant was liable – [2019] IEHC 915 – 18/12/2019 Dunphy v O’Sullivan Physical injuries – Psychological injuries – Liability – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the defendant was liable for workplace bullying – [2019] IEHC 916 – 20/12/2019 Farrell v Deansbridge Couriers Ltd Breach of covenants – Damages – Economic loss – Appellant seeking damages – Whether the appellant was entitled to pursue a claim for reliefs for breach of covenants – [2019] IECA 331 – 20/12/2019 Hemani v Ulster Bank (Ireland) Ltd Damages – Injuries – Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 s. 26 – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the defendant had established any intention on behalf of the plaintiff to mislead the Court – [2020] IEHC 47 – 24/01/2020 Keating v Mulligan Consolidation – Damages – Injuries – Defendants seeking to consolidate various proceedings – Whether it was appropriate that the cases were consolidated – [2020] IEHC 65 – 18/02/2020 Murphy v Croft Nursing Home Ltd Specific performance – Punitive damages – Exemplary damages – Appellant seeking to appeal against a judgment delivered in the High Court and consequent orders granting specific performance of an agreement for the release and discharge by the appellant of all indebtedness and securities over certain assets of the respondents – Whether the award of exemplary damages was erroneously made – [2020] IECA 30 – 19/02/2020 O’Mahony v Promontoria (GEM) DAC Damages – Breach of contract – Costs – Plaintiffs seeking damages – Whether the plaintiffs had consented to the works the defendant undertook – [2020] IEHC 52 – 11/02/2020 Walsh v Kearney

Articles Corbett, V. Does the ‘cap’ fit? A review of developments in the law on general damages. Tort Law and Litigation Review 2019/2020; (2) (1): 1 Robinson, B. A forensic approach. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 16 DATA PROTECTION Articles Khan, S. A practitioner’s insight into complying with the AML directive and GDPR. Irish Law Times 2020; (38) (2): 30 [part 1]; Irish Law Times 2020; (38) (3): 45 [part 2]; Irish Law Times 2020; (38) (4): 58 [part 3] Khan, S. Data protection in third level institutions: challenges and solutions. Irish Law Times 2020; (38) (1): 13 DEFAMATION Defamation – Reasonable cause of action – Frivolous and vexatious proceedings – Defendants seeking an order striking out the plaintiff’s defamation proceedings – Whether the plaintiff’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action – [2019] IEHC 934 – 10/12/2019 Malone v Fenlon Articles Cox, N. Developments in Irish defamation law – 2019. Tort Law and Litigation Review 2019/2020; (2) (1): 35 DEFENCE FORCES Breach of duty – Exhaustion of statutory remedies – Discrimination – Appellants seeking to appeal against High Court findings – Whether the trial judge was entitled to make the declarations sought by the respondent – [2019] IECA 338 – 20/12/2019 Byrne v Minister for Defence Defence forces – Former member – Complaint against platoon commander – Ombudsman for the Defence Forces – Judicial review – Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004 – [2019] IESC 95 – 18/12/2019 Gorman v Ombudsman for the Defence Forces Declaratory relief – Defence forces – Dismissal – Applicant seeking declaratory relief – Whether the applicant had established any basis upon which the High Court could grant the declarations sought – [2019] IEHC 921 – 27/11/2019 Whelan v Minister for Defence DELAY Inordinate and inexcusable delay – want of prosecution – professional negligence – Defendant seeking to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution – Whether the delay was excusable – [2019] IEHC 876 – 08/11/2019 Gilmartin v Gillece

Extension of time – Permission to remain – Deportation orders – Applicants seeking an extension of time to challenge a decision of the respondent – Whether the applicants’ reason for the delay in challenging the respondent’s decision was sufficient – [2020] IEHC 32 – 22/02/2020 G.M. (Georgia) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal Delay – Want of prosecution – Fraudulent misrepresentation – Defendants seeking an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ proceedings as against them for delay and want of prosecution – Whether the delays on the part of the plaintiffs were inordinate and inexcusable – [2020] IEHC 49 – 23/01/2020 Pugh v P.G.M. Financial Services Ltd DISCOVERY Discovery – Public interest privilege – Production – Plaintiff seeking discovery – Whether documents attracted public interest privilege – [2020] IEHC 101 – 27/02/2020 Byrne v Hannon Discovery – Damages – Defamation – Plaintiff seeking discovery – Whether discovery was relevant and necessary – [2020] IEHC 95 – 17/02/2020 Desmond v The Irish Times Ltd EDUCATION Statutory instruments Education (Admission to Schools) Act 2018 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 6/2020 Education (Admission to Schools) Act 2018 (admission policies and admission of students) regulations 2020 – SI 17/2020 English Language Schools Joint Labour Committee establishment order 2020 – SI 42/2020 ELECTORAL Statutory instruments Electoral Act 1992 (special difficulty) order 2020 – SI 34/2020 EMPLOYMENT LAW Contract of employment – Extension – Point of law – Appellant seeking to appeal against the decision of the Labour Court – Whether the Labour Court fell into error in its interpretation of the contract of employment – [2020] IEHC 55 – 31/01/2020 Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd Unfair dismissal – Protected disclosure – Error of law – Appellant seeking to set aside a determination of the Labour Court – Whether the appellant had established any error of law on the part of the Labour Court – [2020] IEHC 56 – 13/02/2020 Baranya v Rosderra Irish Meats Group Ltd Employment – Restrictive covenant – Breach of covenant – Application to enforce covenant – [2019] IEHC 907 –

23/12/2109 Ryanair DAC v Bellew Library acquisitions Waas, B., Heerma van Voss, G. Restatement of Labour Law in Europe: The Concept of Employee Vol I. Oxford: Hart Publishing 2017 – W130 Articles Kafteranis, D. Specific reporting requirements for employees at the banking and financial sector outside the scope of the Protected Disclosure Act 2014. Irish Law Times 2020; (38) (3): 40 Statutory instruments Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2019 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 24/2020 ENERGY Statutory instruments Electricity Regulation Act 1999 (public service obligations) (amendment) order 2020 – SI 56/2020 EQUAL STATUS Discrimination – Equal Status Act 2000 s. 28(3) – Point of law – Applicant seeking to set aside the findings of fact of the Circuit Court – Whether the applicant disclosed any error on a point of law for the purposes of s. 28(3) of the Equal Status Act 2000 – [2020] IEHC 42 – 04/02/2020 Smith v Copeland Library acquisitions Black, L., Dunne, P. Law and Gender in Modern Ireland: Critique and Reform. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2019 – M208.22.C5 Waddington, L. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Practice: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of the Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018 – M208.5 Articles Gaynor, M., O’Sullivan, M. The final frontier. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 18 Tuohy, H. Where gender equality and environmental law meet: appointing a gender focal point for Ireland. University College Dublin Law Review 2019; (19): 30 EUROPEAN UNION Articles Hardiman, A.-M. A duty of optimism. The Bar Review 2020; (25) (1): 10 Little, C. Independence day. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 58 Murphy, F. The United Kingdom has withdrawn from the European Union. Where to now? Commercial Law Practitioner 2020; (27) (2): 19


LEGAL UPDATE

TION LAW / EXTRADITION LAW / CONSTITUTIONAQUALITY / INSOLVENCY / CITIZENSHIP / DAMAGESN / COMMERCIAL LAW / COMPANY LAW DEFAMATION

N UNION / CONTRACT / COPYRIGHT CRIMINAL LAWNFORMATION TECHNOLOGY / EMPLOYMENT LAW

TION LAW / EXTRADITION LAW / CONSTITUTIONAQUALITY / INSOLVENCY / CITIZENSHIP / DAMAGES

COMMERCIAL LAW COMPANY LAW DEFAMATION

x

Statutory instruments European Union (restrictive measures concerning Turkey) regulations 2019 – SI 694/2019 European Union (restrictive measures concerning ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda and natural and legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them) (no. 3) regulations 2019 – SI 696/2019 European Union (cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws) regulations 2020 – SI 14/2020 European Communities (good laboratory practice) regulations 2020 – SI 18/2020 European Union (cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws) (no. 2) regulations 2020 – SI 21/2020 European Union (food and feed hygiene) regulations 2020 – SI 22/2020 European Union (restriction of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment) (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 23/2020 Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Act 2019 (part 15) (commencement) order 2020 – SI 28/2020 European Communities (marketing of fruit plant propagating material) (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 29/2020 European Union (fluorinated greenhouse gas) (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 32/2020 European Union (good agricultural practice for protection of waters) (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 40/2020 European Communities (hygiene of foodstuffs) (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 47/2020 European Communities (minimum conditions for examining agriculture plant species) (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 48/2020 European Communities (minimum conditions for examining of vegetable species) (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 49/2020 European Union (natural mineral waters, spring waters and other waters in bottles or containers) (amendment) regulations 2020. – SI 55/2020 European Communities (vegetable seeds) (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 58/2020 European Communities (marketing of vegetable propagating and plant material, other than seed) (amendment) regulations 2020. – SI 59/2020 EXTRADITION LAW European arrest warrant – Surrender – Request for information – Applicant seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent – Whether it was open to the

respondent to make application to the court to have the cumulative penalty imposed upon him reduced proportionately to reflect the fact that his surrender had been refused in connection with a specified offence or offences – [2020] IEHC 59 – 10/02/2020 Minister for Justice and Equality v Gorczyca European arrest warrant – Surrender – Issue estoppel – Applicant seeking the surrender of the respondent – Whether the surrender was prohibited on the grounds of an issue estoppel – [2020] IEHC 84 – 30/01/2020 Minister for Justice and Equality v Leopold Crime and sentencing – Extradition – European arrest warrants – Alleged attack on PSNI officer – Respondents arrested – Challenge to proposed extradition – [2020] IEHC 77 – 14/02/2020 Minister for Justice and Equality v Maguire; Minister for Justice and Equality v Farrell European arrest warrants – Surrender – Number of charges – Applicant seeking the surrender of the respondent – Whether it was unclear to how many offences a European arrest warrant related – [2020] IEHC 17 – 15/01/2020 Minister for Justice and Equality v Pozgay Surrender – European arrest warrant – European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 s. 45 – Applicant seeking an order for the surrender of the respondent to Romania pursuant to a European arrest warrant – Whether the respondent’s surrender should be refused on the grounds that it is prohibited by s.45 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 – [2020] IEHC 6 – 13/01/2020 Minister for Justice and Equality v Zarnescu FAMILY LAW Special care order – Child Care Act 1991 – Originating notice of motion – Applicant seeking a special care order – Whether it was correct to describe the motion at this stage of the proceedings as being an “originating” notice of motion – [2019] IEHC 917 – 27/12/2019 Child and Family Agency v M.(O’L) Family – Minor – Special needs – Care – Alleged failure to provide suitable placement – Judicial review – [2019] IEHC 930 – 23/10/2019 O’Connor v The Health Service Executive and ors Articles Byrne, J.P., Dr. The end of the plea: marital coercion in England and Wales 1898 to 2014. University College Dublin Law Review 2019; (19): 1 Cagliani, V.I. A new society needs a new concept of adoption: open adoption. Irish Journal of Family Law 2020; (23) (1): 21

O’Connor, M. When is a mother not a mother? The commissioning mother of an Irish surrogate child. Irish Journal of Family Law 2020; (23) (1): 14 O’Sullivan, B. The lived experiences of alienated parents in Ireland: an interpretative phenomenological analysis – summary of findings. Irish Journal of Family Law 2020; (23) (1): 3 Quill, W. Family Law Act 2019. Irish Journal of Family Law 2020; (23) (1): 11 FINANCE Statutory instruments Migration of Participating Securities Act, 2019 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 26/2020 Migration of Participating Securities Act 2019 (prescribed form) (section 10) regulations 2020 – SI 27/2020 FISHERIES Statutory instruments Sea-fisheries (north western waters landing obligation) regulations 2020 – SI 54/2020 Sea-fisheries (quotas) regulations 2020 – SI 57/2020 HEALTH General compensation – Pecuniary loss – Decompensated cirrhosis – Appellant seeking a variation of the order of the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal – Whether the order failed to fairly and reasonably reflect the devastating consequences which decompensated cirrhosis has had and will continue to have on every aspect of the appellant’s life – [2019] IEHC 914 – 19/01/2019 B.D. v Minister for Health and Children Compensation – Loss of opportunity – Loss of society – Appellant seeking compensation – Whether the sum awarded by the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal for loss of opportunity fell short of what is fair and reasonable – [2019] IEHC 905 – 18/10/2019 K.B. v The Minister for Health Statutory instruments Health Products Regulatory Authority (fees) regulations 2019 – SI 700/2019 Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018 (sale and supply of alcohol products) regulations 2020 – SI 4/2020 IMMIGRATION Permission to remain – Deportation – Employment prospects – Applicant seeking permission to remain – Whether there was a material error in the respondent’s reasoning when it came to the consideration of the applicant’s employment prospects – [2020] IEHC 60 – 18/02/2020

A v The Minister for Justice and Equality EU Treaty rights – Citizens’ Rights Directive – Free movement rights – Applicants seeking visa – Whether the respondent was entitled to refuse the visa appeal on the basis of a failure to prove that the applicants were beneficiaries within the meaning of the Citizens’ Rights Directive – [2020] IEHC 61 – 18/02/2020 Aziz v The Minister for Justice and Equality Immigration and asylum – International protection – Judicial review – Applicant seeking certiorari of the respondent’s decision to refuse international protection – Whether the impugned decision of the respondent was unreasonable or irrational – [2020] IEHC 14 – 17/01/2020 D.K. (Ghana) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal Deportation order – Marriage of convenience – Constitutional rights – Applicants seeking to challenge a deportation order – Whether the applicants had a valid legal point – [2020] IEHC 37 – 24/01/2020 Elshahba v The Minister for Justice and Equality Asylum and immigration – Deportation order – Judicial review – Injunctive relief – [2020] IEHC 69 – 03/02/2020 F.R aka J.S. (Pakistan) v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) Asylum and immigration – Deportation order – Judicial review – Application for bail – [2020] IEHC 70 – 04/02/2020 F.R. aka J.S. (Pakistan) v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2) Deportation order – Judicial review – Article 40 of the Constitution – Applicant seeking certiorari of a deportation order – Whether the respondent fell into error in the manner in which he assessed/considered the applicant’s private life rights – [2019] IEHC 879 – 10/12/2019 Harish v The Minister for Justice and Equality International protection – Persecution – Country of origin information – Applicant seeking international protection – Whether the respondent assessed whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of being persecuted by her extended family – [2020] IEHC 63 – 18/02/2020 I. v The International Appeals Tribunal Deportation – Constitutional rights – Prevention of disorder and crime – Applicants seeking to challenge deportation order – Whether the impugned decision of the respondent was made in contravention of the applicants’ rights under Art. 41 of the Constitution by reason of the application of an incorrect test – [2019] IEHC 932 – 14/11/2019 Ishola v The Minister for Justice and Equality Deportation order – Judicial review – Article 40 of the Constitution – Applicant




LEGAL UPDATE



xi

seeking certiorari of a deportation order – Whether the applicant was at risk – [2019] IEHC 840 – 06/12/2019 J.H. (Albania) v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison, and J.H. (Albania) v The Minister for Justice and Equality Asylum and immigration – Deportation order – Application for judicial review – Assessment of private family life rights – [2019] IEHC 857 – 10/12/2019 Jacks v Minister for Justice and Equality Immigration and asylum – Credibility – Persecution – Applicant seeking asylum – Whether the respondent erred in law in its consideration of the benefit of the doubt principle – [2020] IEHC 41 – 29/01/2020 M.R. (Bangladesh) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal Asylum and immigration – Deportation orders – Application for judicial review – Applicants granted permission to remain – Issue of costs – [2019] IEHC 856 – 10/12/2019 Raghoo v Minister for Justice and Equality Residence card – Permitted family member – Judicial review – Appellant seeking a residence card as a permitted family member – Whether the respondent complied with his obligation to give reasons for his decision – [2019] IECA 329 – 19/12/2019 Safdar v The Minister for Justice and Equality Deportation order – Judicial review – Revocation – Applicant seeking leave to appeal – Whether the respondent acted unlawfully and/or in frustration of the purpose of the International Protection Act 2015, in maintaining the deportation order – [2019] IEHC 891 – 16/12/2019 Seredych v The Minister for Justice and Equality Residence card – Permitted family member – Judicial review – Appellant seeking judicial review – Whether the trial judge erred in interpreting the meaning of the term “members of the household of the Union citizen” in the definition of “permitted family member” found in the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 – [2019] IECA 330 – 19/12/2019 Subhan v The Minister for Justice and Equality Immigration and asylum – International protection – Prospective risk – Applicant seeking international protection – Whether the respondent failed to properly consider the issue of prospective risk in the light of the applicant’s factual circumstances and in light of the country of origin information when viewed rationally – [2020] IEHC 7 – 15/01/2020 Z.N.U.D. (Pakistan) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Library acquisitions Devolder, B. The Platform Economy: Unravelling the Legal Status of Online Intermediaries. Cambridge: Intersentia Limited, 2019 – N347.4 Articles Clark, R., Dr., Ryan, P. Grant, C. UK jurisdiction taskforce publishes legal statement on status of cryptoassets and smart contracts – observations from Ireland. Commercial Law Practitioner 2020; (27) (1): 3 INJUNCTIONS Injunctive relief – Tied agency agreements – Termination – Appellant seeking to appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court restraining the termination by the appellant of a number of tied agency agreements with the respondent – Whether the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunctions – [2019] IECA 327 – 18/12/2019 Betty Martin Financial Services Ltd v EBS DAC Injunctive relief – Vacant possession – Surrender – Plaintiffs seeking interlocutory injunctive relief – Whether the plaintiffs had shown that they had a strong case likely to succeed at trial – [2020] IEHC 71 – 20/02/2020 Everyday Finance DAC v White Interlocutory injunction – Property rights – Pecuniary loss – Plaintiff seeking interlocutory injunction – Whether the balance of convenience was against the making of the interlocutory order sought – [2020] IEHC 96 – 28/02/2020 Thistle Bloodstock Ltd v Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board Injunction – Prosecution – Unfair trial – Appellant seeking an injunction restraining the respondent from prosecuting the appellant – Whether it would be unfair given the length of delay to put the appellant on trial – [2020] IECA 4 – 21/01/2020 X. v DPP INTERNATIONAL LAW Statutory instruments Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Act 2019 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 15/2020 IRISH LANGUAGE Statutory instruments Gaeltacht at 2012 (designation of Gaeltacht language planning areas) (no. 3) order 2019 – SI 698/2019 JUDGES Articles Hallissey, M. Allow me to be frank. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 24

JUDICIAL REVIEW Judicial review – Leave application – Care orders – Appellant seeking leave to apply for judicial review – Whether the application for leave was in a proper form – [2019] IECA 323 – 20/12/2019 A.R. v Child and Family Agency Judicial review – Time limit – Marketing authorisation – Applicant seeking to challenge a decision to grant a marketing authorisation – Whether the proceedings were issued within the three-month time limit prescribed under Order 84, rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – [2020] IEHC 16 – 14/01/2020 Arthropharm (Europe) Ltd v The Health Products Regulatory Authority Judicial review – Planning and development – Standing – Applicant seeking leave to appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal – Whether it was desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken from the High Court to the Court of Appeal – [2020] IEHC 4 – 14/01/2020 Conway v An Bord Pleanála Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Failure to remand – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether a failure to remand a person, who has been released on station bail, to a sitting of the District Court within 30 days deprives the District Court of jurisdiction – [2020] IEHC 2 – 14/01/2020 Daly v DPP Judicial review – Sentencing – Presumption of innocence – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether the applicant was deprived of the presumption of innocence in his Circuit Court appeal of sentence – [2020] IEHC 48 – 06/02/2020 D.P. (a minor) v DPP Judicial review – District Court Rules 1997 Order 36, Rule 1 – Costs – Appellant seeking to appeal from the judgment of the High Court – Whether Order 36, Rule 1 of the District Court Rules 1997 purported to effect an amendment to s. 59 of the Dublin Police Act 1842 – [2019] IECA 320 – 20/12/2019 DPP v District Judge McGrath Conviction and sentence – Making a threat to kill or cause serious harm – Intention – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether the trial judge failed to properly charge the jury in relation to mens rea and the issue of intention during the course of his charge and when requisitioned to do so by counsel for the appellant – [2020] IECA 16 – 27/01/2020 DPP v Donnelly Sentencing – Assault causing harm – Undue leniency – Applicant seeking review of sentence – Whether sentence was unduly lenient – [2020] IECA 24 – 20/01/2020

DPP v Moore Judicial review – Permission – Residential development – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent – Whether the notice party’s application to the respondent should be remitted – [2019] IEHC 890 – 20/12/2019 Fitzgerald v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council Judicial review – Committal warrants – Estreatments – Appellants seeking orders of certiorari quashing committal warrants – Whether the warrants were made without jurisdiction – [2019] IECA 321 – 19/12/2019 Forde v District Judge Horgan; Moynihan v District Judge Horgan Judicial review – Subsidiary protection – Deportation orders – Appellant seeking to quash the decisions of the respondent refusing subsidiary protection – Whether the High Court was correct in finding that the respondent’s conclusion on State protection was rational/lawful – [2020] IECA 20 – 05/02/2020 H.I. v The Minister for Justice and Equality; A.I. v The Minister for Justice and Equality Judicial review – Declaratory relief – Reporting restrictions – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari quashing a decision of the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court – Whether there was no basis in law for an order restricting reporting of a sentencing hearing – [2020] IECA 19 – 22/01/2020 Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd v I. (A) Judicial review – Jobseekers allowance – Homelessness – Appellant seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent – Whether the decision to refuse jobseekers allowance based on homelessness was ultra vires the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 – [2020] IECA 7 – 28/01/2020 Kozinceva v The Minister for Social Protection Judicial review – Residence permission – Deportation – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari quashing the notification of the respondent refusing the applicant a residence permission to remain in Ireland – Whether the respondent assessed the weight to be attached to the applicant’s Art. 8 ECHR rights on incorrect and/or mischaracterised facts and associated legal principles – [2020] IEHC 64 – 18/02/2020 Mascarenhas v The Minister for Justice and Equality Judicial review – Recusal – Objective bias – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether objective bias had been established – [2019] IEHC 918 – 20/12/2019 Murphy v DPP Judicial review – Development – Statutory provisions – Applicant seeking judicial


LEGAL UPDATE



TION LAW / EXTRADITION LAW / CONSTITUTIONALQUALITY / INSOLVENCY / CITIZENSHIP / DAMAGES


xii

review – Whether the respondent was precluded from determining referrals – [2020] IEHC 25 – 29/01/2020 Narconon Trust v An Bord Pleanála Crime and sentencing – Offences against the person – Assault causing harm – Judicial review of refusal of jurisdiction – [2020] IEHC 53 – 12/02/2020 Ryan v DPP Judicial review – Substitute consent – Points of law of exceptional public importance – Applicant seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal – Whether it was desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken – [2020] IEHC 22 – 24/01/2020 Shillelagh Quarries Ltd v An Bord Pleanála Judicial review – Planning permission – Development – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether the decision of the respondent was ultra vires and in breach of its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EC – [2020] IEHC 39 – 31/01/2020 Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála LANDLORD AND TENANT Articles Glynn, B. The big freeze. Irish Law Times 2020; (38) (4): 55 Statutory instruments Rent pressure zone (local electoral area of Kells) order 2019 – SI 318/2019 Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (Amendment) Act 2019 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 11/2020 LEGAL HISTORY Library acquisitions Fewer, M. The Battle of the Four Courts: The First Three Days of the Irish Civil War. London: Head of Zeus Ltd, 2018 – L400.C5 LEGAL PROFESSION Articles Clarke, G., Dr. Only the lonely. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 44 Clarke, S. Fighting for fair pay. The Bar Review 2020; (25) (1): 27 Coll, A. CPD doo dah, CPD day. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 40 Hallissey, M. Shake it up. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 52 Murphy, K. Major surge of 9% in PC numbers. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 50 Statutory instruments Registered European lawyers qualifying certificate regulations 2019 – SI 697/2019 MEDIATION LAW Articles Carey, G. International mediation: a new dawn? Commercial Law Practitioner 2020; (27) (1): 10

MEDICAL LAW Medical negligence – Judgment in default of defence – Expert reports – Plaintiff seeking judgment in default of defence – Whether the defendant could investigate matters and have an expert look at the issues of breach of duty and causation – [2020] IEHC 83 – 24/02/2020 Van Der Zaan v The National Maternity Hospital Statutory instruments Optical Registration Board approved qualifications bye-law 2020 – SI 35/2020 Infectious diseases (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 53/2020 NEGLIGENCE Third-party notice – Professional negligence – Development – Third party seeking to set aside the third-party notice – Whether the third-party notice was served as soon as was reasonably possible – [2019] IEHC 875 – 31/10/2019 Abbiamo Ltd and Prefero Ltd (trading together in joint venture as Gallico Developments) v R.N. Murphy and Associates Ltd Negligence – Breach of statutory duty – Trespass – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the defendants were negligent – [2019] IEHC 931 – 25/10/2019 O’Regan v McGuinness Third-party notice – Personal injury – Negligence – Defendant seeking liberty to issue a third-party notice – Whether the defendant and the third party could be concurrent wrongdoers – [2018] IEHC 852 – 10/12/2018 O’Regan v Ryanair DAC Personal injuries – Liability – Negligence – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the defendants were liable for the plaintiff’s injuries – [2020] IEHC 76 – 21/02/2020 Turner v The Curragh Racecourse Articles Ní Fhloinn, D. Contributory negligence and identification: section 35 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 awakens. Tort Law and Litigation Review 2019/2020; (2) (1): 23 PENSIONS Statutory instruments Occupational pension schemes (revaluation) regulations 2020 – SI 52/2020 PERSONAL INJURY Personal injuries – Damages – Delay – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the plaintiff had been guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay – [2020] IEHC 46 – 06/02/2020 Ahearne v O’Sullivan Personal injuries – Assessment – Costs – Applicant seeking to have an assessment

made by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board rejected – Whether the assessment reflected the full value of the claim – [2020] IEHC 1 – 13/01/2020 Dunne (a minor) v Stapleton Personal injury – Damages – Negligence – Plaintiff seeking damages – Whether the road traffic accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant – [2020] IEHC 40 – 24/01/2020 Griffin v Hoare Articles Glynn, B. The statute of limitations and when an application to PIAB is “made”. Irish Law Times 2020; (38) (2): 27 PERSONAL INSOLVENCY Personal insolvency arrangement – Prejudice – Personal Insolvency Act 2012 s. 115A – Bank objecting to an application under s. 115A (9) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 – Whether granting the order sought by the debtor’s personal insolvency practitioner under s. 115A (9) would have the effect of depriving the bank of its rights against the former bankrupt – [2019] IEHC 889 – 20/12/2019 Forde Egan (a debtor), In re Personal insolvency arrangement – Debt for equity – Personal Insolvency Act 2012 s. 115A – Personal insolvency practitioner seeking an order confirming the coming into effect of a personal insolvency arrangement – Whether the requirements of s. 115A of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 could be satisfied – [2020] IEHC 104 – 02/03/2020 Lowe (a debtor), In re Proposed arrangement – Recovery of debts – Unfair prejudice – Debtor seeking confirmation of proposed arrangement – Whether proposed arrangements unfairly prejudice interests of secured creditor – [2020] IEHC 103 – 02/03/2020 McNamara (a debtor), In re Costs – Personal insolvency – Due diligence – Objecting creditor seeking costs against a personal insolvency practitioner – Whether the personal insolvency practitioner carried out adequate due diligence to establish the income position of the debtor – [2020] IEHC 23 – 27/01/2020 Varvar, In re PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Permission – Development – Invalid appeal – Applicant seeking an order quashing a decision of the respondent to reject, as invalid, an appeal filed by the applicant with the respondent – Whether the applicant’s appeal was invalid – [2020] IEHC 27 – 28/01/2020 Dalton v An Bord Pleanála Planning and development –

Unauthorised development – Planning and Development Act 2000 s. 160 – Applicants seeking orders under s. 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 – Whether works constituted unauthorised development – [2020] IEHC 15 – 21/01/2020 Hayes v O’Donoghue Environmental impact statement – Directive 2011/92/EU – Development – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent – Whether the respondent had been in breach of its obligations under Directive 2 011/92/EU – [2019] IEHC 929 – 20/12/2019 M28 Steering Group v An Bord Pleanála Strike out proceedings – Bound to fail – Amendment of statement of grounds – Respondents seeking to strike out the proceedings against them – Whether the proceedings against the respondents were bound to fail and/or were an abuse of process – [2019] IEHC 924 – 19/12/2019 North Westmeath Turbine Action Group v An Bord Pleanála Planning permission – Environmental impact assessment – Appropriate assessment – Applicant seeking to challenge a decision of the respondent granting planning permission – Whether there was a failure to carry out and record any appropriate assessment in accordance with national and European law – [2019] IEHC 888 – 20/12/2019 Sliabh Luachra Against Ballydesmond Windfarm Committee v An Bord Pleanála Articles O’Grady, R. The winds of change. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 30 Statutory instruments Forestry (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 31/2020 Microbeads (Prohibition) Act 2019 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 36/2020 Forestry (amendment) (no. 2) regulations 2020 – SI 39/2020 Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2018 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 44/2020 Planning and Development Act 2000 (exempted development) regulations 2020 – SI 45/2020 Planning and development (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 46/2020 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Recusal – Objective bias – Error in law – Appellant seeking to appeal decisions of the trial judge in relation to a recusal application – Whether the trial judge had erred in law – [2019] IECA 337 – 16/12/2019 Defender Ltd v HSBC Institutional Trust




LEGAL UPDATE



xiii

Services (Ireland) Ltd Alternative dispute resolution process – Prosecution – Causation – Plaintiffs seeking an order amending an alternative dispute resolution process – Whether the fact that the applicants had not had their claims progressed was due to any fault in the scheme – [2019] IEHC 922 – 20/12/2019 DePuy ADR Process v DePuy International Ltd Oral applications – Declaratory relief – Payments – First defendant seeking an order vacating the order purportedly requiring the first defendant to withdraw appeals – Whether the first defendant’s application ought to be allowed – [2019] IEHC 892 – 06/12/2019 Dully v Athlone Town Stadium Ltd Loan agreement – Settlement agreement – Bound to fail – Appellant seeking a declaration that a loan agreement was illegal and a settlement agreement was void – Whether the appellant’s proceedings were bound to fail – [2019] IESC 97 – 20/12/2019 Malone v Allison Leave to appeal – Point of law of exceptional public importance – Deportation – Respondents seeking leave to appeal – Whether it was desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken – [2020] IEHC 66 – 18/02/2020 Nadeem v The Minister for Justice and Equality Extension of time – Order for possession – Jurisdiction – Appellants seeking extension of time – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court made on appeal from the Circuit Court – [2020] IESC 2 – 04/02/2020 Pepper Finance Corporation v Cannon Orders for possession – New party in substitution – Liberty to issue execution – Stars DAC seeking an order making it a party to the proceedings – Whether Start Mortgages DAC was entitled to the benefit of an order for possession – [2020] IEHC 24 – 27/01/2020 Permanent TSB Plc v Burns Statement of claim – Amendments – Corruption – Defendants seeking to appeal against the High Court decision to allow all the amendments to the statement of claim sought by the plaintiffs – Whether the trial judge was correct to permit the proposed amendments to proceed – [2019] IECA 360 – 16/12/2019 Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise Extension of time – Possession – Properties – Plaintiff seeking to appeal against the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of an application to extend the time within which to appeal an order of the High Court – Whether the appellant’s rights had been violated by an order made

in the absence of jurisdiction – [2020] IESC 3 – 04/02/2020 Seniors Money Mortgages (Ireland) DAC v Gately Racial discrimination – Legal aid certificate – Findings of fact – Appellant seeking to set aside the findings of fact of the Circuit Court – Whether the findings of fact made by the Circuit Court were unsupported by evidence, unreasonable or based on an incorrect interpretation of documents – [2020] IEHC 51 – 11/02/2020 Smith v The Office of the Ombudsman Case stated – Error in law – Valuation – Appellant seeking to appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court – Whether the determination of the Valuation Tribunal was based on an error of fact – [2020] IECA 33 – 26/02/2020 Stanberry Investments Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation Library Acquisitions Sime, S., French, D., Lethem, C. Blackstone’s Civil Practice 2019. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019 – N365 Articles Biehler, H. The right to representation as an aspect of the procedural fairness. Irish Law Times 2020; (38) (1): 5 Cogan, E. Supreme appeal. The Bar Review 2020; (25) (1): 15 PRIVACY Articles McCormick, A. The immortal icon: a critical analysis of post-mortem publicity rights in the United States. University College Dublin Law Review 2019; (19): 47 O’Doherty, M. Social media, privacy and evidence. The Bar Review 2020; (25) (1): 23 PROBATE Executor – Grant of probate – Succession Act 1965 s. 27 (4) – Appellant seeking to pass over the executor of the estate – Whether there were special circumstances to justify the grant of relief – [2020] IEHC 21 – 24/01/2020 Horan (Deceased), In re Library acquisitions Keating, A. Will Trusts and Equitable Property Rights. Dublin: Clarus Press, 2019 – N125.C5 PROPERTY Joint tenancy – Judgment mortgage – Question of law – Plaintiff seeking proceeds of sale of lands – Whether joint tenants of registered land can sever their joint tenancy after the registration of a judgment mortgage in a manner which is effective against the judgment mortgagee – [2020] IEHC 3 – 14/01/2020 A.D.M. Mersey Plc v Bergin

Social housing support – Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 s. 20(1) – Judicial review – Appellant seeking certiorari of the respondent’s decision to classify him as a single person and in assessing his housing needs on that basis – Whether the respondent took into account irrelevant considerations and did not give adequate weight to relevant considerations – [2019] IESC 96 – 19/12/2019 Fagan v Dublin City Council Articles Thomas, J. In general condition. Law Society Gazette 2020; (Jan/Feb): 36 Statutory instruments Dwellings damaged by the use of defective concrete blocks in construction (remediation) (financial assistance) regulations 2020 – SI 25/2020 RELIGION Statutory instruments Blasphemy (Abolition of Offences and Related Matters) Act 2019 (commencement) order 2020 – SI 13/2020 SOCIAL WELFARE Statutory instruments Social welfare (section 290A) (agreement) order 2020 – SI 19/2020 Social Welfare (No. 2) Act 2019 (section 4) (commencement) order 2020 – SI 38/2020 Social welfare (consolidated claims, payments and control) (amendment) (no.1) (payments after death) regulations 2020 – SI 50/2020 TAXATION Valuation – Appropriate multiplier – Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation – Applicant seeking valuation of company – Whether there was an appropriate multiplier for the purposes of evaluating the company – [2020] IEHC 72 – 20/02/2020 Harrington v Harrington Statutory instruments Stamp duty (designation of exchanges and markets) (no. 5) regulations 2019 – SI 699/2019 Betting duty and betting intermediary duty (amendment) regulations 2020 – SI 1/2020 TORT Library acquisitions Corbett, V. Tort (3rd ed.). Dublin: Round Hall, 2019 – N30.C5 Articles Gleeson, E. Recent Supreme Court decisions on the statute of limitations and

the date of knowledge: O’Sullivan v Ireland and Green v Hardiman. Tort law and Litigation Review 2019/2020; (2) (1): 67 TRANSPORT Statutory instruments Statistics (carriage of goods and passengers by sea) order 2020 – SI 5/2020 Statistics (carriage of passengers, freight and mail by air) order 2020 – SI 10/2020 Harbours Act 1996 (section 23) (Dublin Port Company) order 2020 – SI 41/2020 WARDS OF COURT Wardship – Jurisdiction – Review – Applicant seeking release from hospital – Whether there was a gap in the wardship orders which rendered subsequent wardship orders invalid – [2019] IEHC 933 – 25/10/2019 A.C. v Minister for Health Costs – Care – Ward of Court – Committee of the Ward seeking costs – Whether Committee of the Ward was entitled to costs – [2020] IEHC 20 – 24/01/2020 The Appropriate Care of a Ward of Court Wardship – Visitation rights – Conflict of interest – Appellant seeking to appeal against High Court order – Whether the order taking the appellant’s mother into wardship was lawful – [2020] IECA 28 – 19/02/2020 P.C. v The Minister for Health Supreme Court determinations – Leave to Appeal Granted Published on Courts.ie – January 17, 2020, to March 12, 2020 Trafalgar Developments Limited and ors v Dmitry Mazepin and ors [2020] IESCDET 1 – Leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal granted on the 20/01/2020 – (O’Donnell J., MacMenamin J., Charleton J.) Friends of the Environment CLG v The Government of Ireland and anor [2020] IESCDET 13 – Leave to appeal from the High Court granted on the 13/02/2020 – (Clarke C.J., Irvine J., Baker J.) For up-to-date information, please check the courts website – https://beta.courts.ie/determinations


LEGAL UPDATE



TION LAW / EXTRADITION LAW / CONSTITUTIONALQUALITY / INSOLVENCY / CITIZENSHIP / DAMAGES


xiv


The Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) is a statutory body, which

regulates the provision of legal services by legal practitioners and ensures the

maintenance and improvement of standards in the provision of legal services in

the State. On October 7, 2019, the LSRA commenced receiving and investigating

complaints against legal practitioners in relation to inadequate services, excessive

costs, and what might amount to misconduct.

The three grounds for complaint under Part 6 of the Legal Services Regulation

Act 2015 (the Act) are:

■ that the legal services provided were of an inadequate standard;

■ that the amount of costs sought by the legal practitioner were excessive; and,

■ that the legal practitioner performed an act or omission, which amounts to

misconduct under the Act.

Misconduct is broadly defined in the Act and includes an act or omission that

involves fraud or dishonesty, or which is likely to bring the profession into

disrepute. The provision of legal services that are inadequate to a substantial

degree, or the seeking of grossly excessive costs, can also be misconduct under

the Act. Only a client – or a person acting on behalf of a client – can bring a

complaint to the LSRA where the client considers that the services provided were

of an inadequate standard or that the fees charged were excessive. When it comes

to alleged misconduct by a solicitor or barrister, any person can make a complaint

to the LSRA.

The LSRA published its annual report in early March 2020, which sets out an

overview of the complaints received during the period October 2019 to December

2019. Of the 304 complaints received, 141 (46.4%) related to inadequate services,

134 (44.1%) related to misconduct, and 29 (9.5%) related to excessive costs.

Further details in relation to the area of law to which each complaint relates are

contained in the 2019 LSRA Annual Report (www.lsra.ie). Notably, only three

complaints related to barristers.

There is a useful guide available on the LSRA website setting out information for

practitioners when a complaint is made to the LSRA about a legal practitioner,

which should be read in conjunction with the Act.

The following article sets out a high-level overview of the general process that is

invoked when a complaint is made under each of the three categories.

Sean Gillane SC Chairman, Professional Practices Committee

LAW IN PRACTICE

Complaints to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority

Barristers are now subject to the complaints procedures of the LSRA and it is important for practitioners to understand the processes involved.

1. Inadequate service

Preliminary review Complaints of an inadequate standard of service can be made by your client (or

your client’s representative) and are initially processed by the LSRA executive.

In the first instance, a practitioner against whom the complaint is being made will

be provided with a copy of the LSRA complaint form and all documents submitted

to the LSRA executive by the complainant, and asked to respond to the complaint.

Once the LSRA executive receives a response, and any additional information that

it may request, it will conduct a preliminary review to decide whether or not the

complaint is admissible.

Sometimes, the practitioner will try to resolve a complaint as soon as they receive

a copy of the complaint and before the LSRA executive has determined the

complaint to be admissible. This is acceptable to the LSRA executive and, where

this occurs, the executive will consider the complaint and determine if any further

investigation is required.

Admissibility Admissible means that the complaint meets the criteria set out in the Act; in other

words, it is one of inadequate service, is not frivolous or vexatious or without

substance or foundation, and has been made within the required time limits.

It is important that practitioners are aware that the complaint will not be

admissible if it was previously made to the Bar Council or King’s Inns, and was

determined by one of those bodies, even if the complainant was unhappy with

the outcome. If a practitioner is notified of a complaint that was previously

determined, they should advise the LSRA executive of this fact and the details of

the original complaint. This will enable the executive to correctly determine the

admissibility of the complaint.

The LSRA executive will then notify the practitioner and the complainant that

the complaint has been determined to be either inadmissible or admissible, and

the reasons why.

Informal resolution The LSRA executive is required under the legislation to offer the practitioner and

the complainant the option to resolve a complaint of inadequate service (including

of a substantial nature) through informal resolution.

The informal resolution process is voluntary and is provided by trained mediators,

and aims to facilitate the resolution of a complaint at an early stage with both

parties arriving at an agreed solution, rather than having a solution imposed on

them. There is no charge for the mediation conducted by LSRA executive staff.

The parties can also choose to enter mediation conducted by a third party;

however, charges will apply and they must be borne equally by the parties, unless

an agreement is reached between the parties regarding costs.

Informal resolution is a confidential process and if a practitioner opts to engage

in it, but cannot resolve the complaint, any information obtained through the

process must remain confidential to the parties involved in the resolution process.

This means that if the complaint goes on to a full investigation, the committee

tasked with the investigation will not know of or be given any answers or

statements made in the informal resolution process.


LAW IN PRACTICE

29

134

141

Inadequate Services 141 (46.4%)

Misconduct 134 (44.1%)

Excessive Costs 29 (9.5%)

TOTAL 304


Determining unresolved complaints If the parties choose to reject the invitation to participate in the informal resolution

process, the LSRA executive will write to the practitioner and the complainant

asking for a statement setting out a response in relation to the complaint to be

submitted within 21 days. The LSRA will then make a determination regarding

the complaint and the executive will decide whether or not services were

inadequate. Both parties will be notified of the determination made and given

an opportunity to appeal that decision to a review committee.

LSRA executive directions There are a range of directions open to the LSRA executive. Where the LSRA

considers that the legal services provided were of an inadequate standard, and

that it is, having regard to all the circumstances concerned, appropriate to do so,

the executive of the Authority may direct the practitioner to do one or more of

the following:

(a) secure the rectification, at his or her own expense, of any error, omission or

other deficiency arising in connection with the legal services concerned;

(b) take, at his or her own expense (which shall not exceed ¤3,000), such other

action as the Authority may specify;

(c) transfer any documents relating to the subject matter of the complaint to

another practitioner nominated by the client, subject to such terms and

conditions as the Authority may consider appropriate, having regard to the

existence of any right to possession or retention of any of the documents

concerned vested in the practitioner to whom the direction is issued; and,

(d) pay to the client a sum not exceeding ¤3,000 as compensation for any financial

or other loss suffered in consequence of the legal services provided by the

practitioner to the client being of an inadequate standard.

The practitioner will be provided with a copy of the direction made and given an

opportunity to consider it and decide whether or not to appeal the decision. Both

the practitioner and the complainant are entitled to seek a review of the

determination made by the LSRA. If the complaint relates to inadequate services

and a review is sought by either party on the direction made by the LSRA, the

direction will cease to have effect.

The LSRA Review Committee This committee reviews determinations and directions made by the LSRA

executive that relate to complaints of inadequate standard of service. The

Review Committee is made up of three people: two lay people and a barrister.

If the practitioner or the complainant request a review, the secretary to the

LSRA Review Committee will write to both parties asking each to provide a

statement in writing to it, setting out why they feel that the determination

reached by the LSRA executive relating to inadequate standard of services

was incorrect or unjust.

The Review Committee will review all the documentation available to it and

make one of the following decisions:

■ confirm the determination of the LSRA executive;

■ send the complaint back to the LSRA executive to be dealt with again; or,

■ issue one or more direction to the practitioner, which the LSRA is authorised

to issue.

If the practitioner and/or the complainant accept the determination of the review

committee, it shall become absolutely binding on the practitioner (and the

complainant) 21 days after the decision has been notified to the parties. If a

practitioner without good reason refuses, neglects or otherwise fails to comply

with the determination, the practitioner may be guilty of an offence and could

be prosecuted in the District Court. The LSRA may also consider this to be a

professional conduct matter.

High Court appeal If a practitioner or complainant remains dissatisfied with a decision of the LSRA

Review Committee, they may apply to the High Court for an order directing the

LSRA Review Committee to rescind or vary the determination as the High Court

considers appropriate.

2. Excessive cost Complaints of excessive costs can be made by your client (or your client’s

representative) and are initially processed by the LSRA executive. The LSRA

executive process of preliminary review, admissibility, informal resolution,

determination, etc., is as outlined above, except under the LSRA executive

directions.

LSRA executive directions There are a range of directions open to the LSRA executive. Where the LSRA

executive considers that the amount of costs sought in respect of legal services

provided to the client by the practitioner was or is excessive, and that it is, having

regard to all the circumstances concerned, appropriate to do so, it may direct the

practitioner to do one or more of the following:

(a) refund without delay, either wholly or in part as directed, any amount already

paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the practitioner’s costs in

connection with the bill of costs; and,

(b) waive, whether wholly or in part as directed, the right to recover those costs.

The practitioner will be provided with a copy of the direction made and given an

opportunity to consider it and decide whether or not to appeal the decision. The

LSRA Review Committee operates as outlined above.

Party ordered to pay legal costs of another In the case where a party is ordered to pay the legal costs of another, this process

is governed by the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicator under Part 10 of the

2015 Act. As part of the Government’s commitment to provide for transparency

in the area of legal costs, the Office will, in addition to undertaking those

processes previously undertaken by the Taxing Master’s office, establish and

maintain a register of determinations of applications for adjudication of legal

costs.

The Chief Legal Costs Adjudicator and legal costs adjudicators will exercise

adjudicative functions in assessing legal costs. Their job is to provide an

independent and impartial process of assessment of legal costs, which endeavours

to achieve a balance between the costs involved and the services rendered.

Chapter 4 under Part 10 of the Act provides the framework for the determination

of legal costs.

LAW IN PRACTICE


LAW IN PRACTICE

3. Allegations of misconduct Section 50(1) of the Act defines misconduct. Complaints of misconduct can be

made by any person. The same LSRA executive process outlined previously will

apply regarding admissibility. Admissible complaints of misconduct, however, are

referred to an LSRA Complaints Committee for investigation.

LSRA Complaints/Divisional Committee The LSRA Complaints Committee is made up of 27 members, who will be

appointed in groups of three or five to investigate each individual complaint.

These smaller committees are called LSRA divisional committees.

A divisional committee will consider and investigate complaints relating to

misconduct that are referred to it by the Complaints Committee. The divisional

committee will receive a copy of the complaint and any documents that have

been submitted by both the practitioner and the complainant, together with a

summary of the complaint. The committee will then write to the practitioner,

providing them with a copy of the complaint, together with a copy of any

documents relating to it, and request a response.

The divisional committee may also send the practitioner a notice in writing and

may request:

■ that the practitioner verify anything contained in their response to the

complaint;

■ that the practitioner provide information or documents relating to the

complaint; and,

■ that the practitioner verify information by way of an affidavit.

A practitioner is required to comply with any notice issued to them. If a practitioner

agrees that the complaint against them is warranted, they will have the

opportunity to accept a sanction rather than have the complaint undergo a full

investigation.

Investigations If the practitioner responds indicating that they are not in agreement with a

sanction, the divisional committee will provide the complainant with a copy of

the practitioner’s response and invite them to provide views on it. If the committee

determines that the matter complained of is not one that warrants a sanction or

direction, it will advise the practitioner and the complainant in writing, and give

reasons for its decision. If a practitioner is willing to accept the complaint of

wrongdoing and a sanction that may be imposed, the divisional committee will

make a determination and direction regarding the complaint.

If the divisional committee is not satisfied with the practitioner’s response, or if

the practitioner does not respond, it will proceed to investigate the complaint as

it considers appropriate. A practitioner may represent themselves or they may be

represented by a person of their choice for the purpose of appearing before the

divisional committee. Please be aware, however, that the costs of such

representation, if any, shall be borne by the practitioner.

The divisional committee may decide to accept the withdrawal of a complaint by

the complainant; however, if the divisional committee is of the opinion that an

investigation should proceed despite the complainant’s withdrawal, it will notify

the practitioner and the complainant of its decision.

Determinations and directions Where the divisional committee determines that the complaint warrants

the imposition of a sanction, it may specify one or more of the options

that are set out in section 71 of the Act.

Where the divisional committee considers that the act or omission that is

the subject of the complaint is of a kind that is more appropriate for

consideration by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (LPDT), it

may make an application in respect of the matter to it for the holding of

an inquiry.

High Court appeal A determination of the divisional committee can be appealed to the High

Court by the practitioner or the LSRA. There is no appeal mechanism

available for complainants.

The LPDT This process is usually reserved for very serious types of misconduct

complaints that the complaints/divisional committee considers too serious

for it to investigate. Allegations of a criminal nature made against a legal

practitioner may be referred to An Garda Síochána for investigation. Other

serious allegations, which do not involve criminality, can be referred to the

LPDT if the complaint/divisional committee considers that it is more

appropriate. The LPDT is completely independent of the LSRA. It is made

up of 33 members appointed by the President of the High Court, on the

nomination of the Minister for Justice and Equality.

The LPDT has a majority of laypersons appointed to it and its role is to

conduct tribunals of inquiries into allegations of misconduct made against

legal practitioners. The inquiry is conducted by way of an oral hearing,

which is normally held in public, unless the LPDT is satisfied that it should

be held in private. The legislation allows the LPDT to call witnesses, hear

evidence and make a determination in a case. It can also prosecute

someone in court for failing to appear before it, refusing to produce

documents, or giving false information, which hinders or obstructs the

tribunal.

LPDT sanctions The LPDT has a wide range of sanctions available to it, from impacting on

a practitioner’s practising certificate to imposing substantial fines, and may

make an order imposing one or more sanctions on the practitioner as set

out under section 82 of the Act. The LSRA and/or the practitioner can

appeal a decision of the LPDT to the High Court.

Conclusion As noted in the LSRA Annual Report 2019, in the relatively short period

of time to the end of 2019, certain themes in relation to the complaints

received have started to emerge. One feature that cuts across almost all

complaints is, perhaps unsurprisingly, communication. Where a legal

practitioner fails to properly respond and adequately explain issues to

clients, then complaints will inevitably follow. Perhaps our communications

are something that we should all be mindful of.

The recent case of Anne Roper v RTÉ1 has again highlighted the difficulty for

employers regarding compulsory retirement ages. On December 19, 2019, the

Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) awarded ¤100,000 to Ms Roper in

compensation for discrimination on the grounds of age. Ms Roper was an executive

producer/director with RTÉ at the time of retirement and requested to work for a

further 18 months beyond the age of 65. This request was refused by RTÉ following

an internal grievance procedure. The decision in Anne Roper is currently under appeal

to the Labour Court.2 Nevertheless, the case has highlighted the contradicting

approach of the adjudicating bodies in this area. What is important from the point

of view of employers is that the WRC refused to accept the argument advanced by

RTÉ that the retirement age of 65 was to ensure “intergenerational fairness”,

allowing younger workers to progress in RTÉ. This is despite the fact that this

argument has been endorsed consistently by the High Court and the Court of Justice

of the European Union (CJEU). “Intergenerational fairness” is also provided as an

example of a legitimate aim for a compulsory retirement age in the Code of Practice

on Longer Working.3 The case of Anne Roper has again brought to light the

balancing act that employers must engage in when dealing with employees nearing

retirement. On the one hand, employers are asked to approach older employees in

an equal and consistent way. This is primarily to avoid embarrassment resulting from

testing the capacity of older employees. On the other hand, employers must deal

with employees on an individual basis if a request is made to remain in work beyond

a normal retirement age. This individualised approach towards older employees is

contrasted with the approach taken by the courts that the purely individual needs

of a business will not act as a legitimate aim to objectively justify a compulsory

retirement age. A court will enforce the far-reaching duty of an employer to facilitate

an employee with alternative roles if such a request is made. Surprisingly, this duty

exceeds what is required of an employer when dealing with an employee with a

disability. The Supreme Court has recently confirmed that the duty of an employer

to provide reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to find an

alternative job for an employee with a disability.4 The 2018 WRC Annual Report

revealed a 343% increase in complaints related to discrimination on grounds of age.5

This is feasibly due to the contrasting decisions in the area, the resulting confusion

caused to employers, and their somewhat burdensome duties in relation to

employees nearing retirement.

Age as a protected ground in discrimination claims Age has been described as a “relative newcomer” to the list of characteristics that

are protected against discrimination by the courts.6 The UK Supreme Court in Seldon

v Clarkson Wright and Jakes7 has emphasised the importance of putting

“stereotypical assumptions out of our minds”. The Court also made reference to

assumptions pertaining to age and capacity, and stated that “these assumptions no

longer hold good (if they ever did) in times of increasing longevity”.8 As a relatively

new ground of discrimination, it appears that courts are finding it difficult to secure

legal boundaries.9

The complexities of age discrimination have recently been demonstrated in Poland,

where new legislation requires senior judges to retire at 65 rather than 70. The effect

of this legislation was the immediate retirement of numerous Supreme Court judges.

This resulted in the case A.K. and others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber

of the Supreme Court),10 which was brought to the CJEU in an expedited procedure.

This legislation has had a considerable impact on the rule of law in Poland.11

Ireland, unlike other EU countries, does not have a fixed retirement age for workers.

The usual retirement age is 65 for employees but workers subsequently remain

ineligible for State pensions until the qualifying age of 66. This remains the situation

despite the European Commission’s repeated call on member states to reduce

disparities in statutory pension ages, and to review unwarranted mandatory

retirement ages.12 In March 2020, the EU13 announced that the “priority of EU policy

is to encourage Europeans to remain in work longer, to ensure the sustainability of

pension systems and adequate social protection”.14

The Public Service Superannuation (Age of Retirement) Act 2018 was enacted to

address this issue and increases the retirement age of most public sector workers

from 65 to 70 years of age.15 Public sector workers who are not covered by the 2018

Act include: the President; the judiciary; the Master of the High Court; and, county

registrars. Notwithstanding this governmental intervention, there has been a

significant increase in litigation in this area.16 This has resulted in contrasting

decisions in relation to objective justification of a retirement age.

Objective justification of a retirement age Discrimination on grounds of age is prohibited under the EU Framework Directive,17

the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015, and the Constitution.18 The legal context


Katherine McVeigh BL

LAW IN PRACTICE

Too old to work?

Inconsistent decisions in compulsory retirement age cases have created a headache for employers.

for compulsory retirement ages is Article 6 of the Framework Directive, which

stipulates that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute

discrimination “if they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim”

and “if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate”.19 This is transposed into

Irish law by virtue of s.34(4) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015.

In February 2020, the WRC confirmed in A Sales Assistant v A Limited Company20

that the test that the WRC is continuing to use in cases concerning compulsory

retirement is set out in Donnellan v The Minister for Justice and others.21 In

Donnellan, the High Court found that a compulsory retirement age of 60 for

assistant garda commissioners was objectively justified. Mr Justice McKechnie held:

“[N]ational measures relating to compulsory retirement ages, are not excluded from

consideration under [the Framework Directive]. Any discrimination with regards to

age must, as put by that Directive, serve a legitimate aim or purpose, and the means

taken to achieve that purpose must be appropriate and should go no further than

is necessary, i.e., they should be proportionate”.

The UK Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in National Union of Rail, Maritime and

Transport Workers v Lloyd22 recently held that the correct test to apply when

assessing whether an aim is legitimate is: (i) to address the successive questions of

whether each asserted aim was a true aim and actual objective; (ii) if so, whether it

was capable of being a legitimate aim; and, (iii) whether it was a legitimate aim in

the particular circumstances.23

The Code of Practice on Longer Working lists examples of legitimate aims that an

employer can rely on to retire an employee, including:

■ intergenerational fairness (allowing younger workers to progress);

■ motivation and dynamism through the increased prospect of promotion;

■ health and safety (generally in more safety critical occupations);8

■ creation of a balanced age structure in the workforce;

■ personal and professional dignity (avoiding capability issues with older

employees); or,

■ succession planning.

The courts have repeatedly held that despite the foregoing list being the ‘go to’ for

employers seeking a legitimate aim for retirement ages, they will scrutinise the aim

and seek evidence to justify a retirement age in each particular company.

Consistency and inconsistency The Code of Practice on Longer Working advises employers to implement objective

criteria “to ensure an equal and consistent approach” to address requests from

employees wanting to remain in employment after a normal retirement age.24 There

has been somewhat of a contrasting approach by the courts in relation to

consistency for all employees nearing retirement. In Roche v Complete Bar

Solutions,25 a compulsory retirement age was found to be a custom and practice in

that workplace, and a legitimate aim to create certainty in business planning. The

consideration of whether a retirement age was a custom or practice again was a

main issue in Quigley v HSE.26 In that case, Mr Justice Gilligan granted an injunction

prohibiting the HSE from retiring Dr Quigley. The High Court found that the

retirement age of 65 was not “so notorious as to be well known and acquiesced”,

that it was not a “custom and practice” within the workplace.27

On the other hand, the complainants in Valerie Cox v RTÉ28 and Anne Roper v RTÉ29

were both successful in their claims of discrimination on grounds of age when RTÉ

attempted to force retirement. This is notwithstanding that the RTÉ Staff Manual

set a “normal” retirement age of 65 (but not a “compulsory” retirement age) in both

cases. It was not in dispute that the complainants in those cases were aware of that

“normal” retirement age. Nevertheless, the test of whether it was a custom or practice

in RTÉ to retire employees at 65 was not accepted by the WRC in Anne Roper, and it

appears it was not even considered by the WRC in Valerie Cox. These decisions are

inconsistent with the reasoning in Quigley and Roche, where the test of whether a

retirement age is a custom or practice was heavily considered. Further, the WRC in

LAW IN PRACTICE


https://www.dublinarbitration.ie/

LAW IN PRACTICE


the recent case of Kathleen Dempsey v The West of Ireland Alzheimer Foundation30

held that the respondent did not advance reasons relating to why other employees,

and not the complainant, were allowed to remain in their employment after the age

of 65. In Anne Roper v RTÉ,1 the same approach was taken in one regard; namely, the

WRC found that the complainant was treated less favourably because of “several other

employees who, when they reached age 65, were permitted to continue working”. At

the same time, the adjudication officer acknowledged that “most” employees in RTÉ

retired at 65 and that “it was unnecessary to refuse a request from one person to

remain on longer”. The WRC in both of these recent cases found for the complainants

on two irreconcilable grounds. In Dempsey, the deciding issue was that there were

other employees allowed to remain after the normal retirement age. This is contrasted

to Anne Roper, where a factor considered was that the majority of employees retired

at 65 and it was unnecessary to refuse Ms Roper’s request. Given that the Code of

Practice on Longer Working is advocating for an “equal and consistent” approach for

all employees, this reasoning in Anne Roper is contradictory to that approach. This

underlines the difficulties that adjudicating bodies are facing in balancing the rights

of employees and employers in the context of discrimination on the grounds of age.

How far must an employer go? The requirement for employers to adopt a flexible approach when dealing with

compulsory retirement ages has been emphasised at national and EU level. The

Government’s Roadmap for Pensions Reform 2018-2023 encouraged flexibility for

employees in retirement and suggested that if flexibility is not improved for

employees, the Government will consider “restricting the capacity to use mandatory

retirement provisions relative to the prevailing State pension age”.31 In the Code of

Practice on Longer Working, the WRC has gone as far as to state that the duty on

employers to ensure flexibility extends to offering an employee nearing retirement

less than full hours or an alternative role. The duty of an employer to consider an

alternative role was recently addressed in Sales Advisor v DIY,32 where the adjudication

officer stated: “The regrettable fact in this case is… that the parties were not minded

to sit down and tease out a less absolute alternative to automatic termination at aged

65”. This was developed in Anne Roper, where the WRC identified other options that

RTÉ should have considered, including “assigning [Ms Roper] to a new, temporary

assignment for a fixed-term, and in this way, freeing up her job for promotion”. The

duty of employers to find an alternative position suitable to that particular employee

would likely entail an individual assessment to ascertain capacity and capability. This

individual approach, however, may be problematic. Recent case law has emphasised

the need to uphold the dignity of an older employee by avoiding individual

assessments, which may cause embarrassment to that employee.9 Lady Hale neatly

summed up the issue in Seldon, where she stated that the legitimate aim of dignity:7

“… has been variously put as avoiding the need to dismiss older workers on the grounds

of incapacity or underperformance, thus preserving their dignity and avoiding

humiliation, and as avoiding the need for costly and divisive disputes about capacity or

underperformance”.33

The Code of Practice on Longer Working also includes the legitimate aim of

“personal and professional dignity (avoiding capability issues with older employees)”.

A significant case that considered the negative effect of individual assessments of

employees is White v Ministry for Justice,34 where performance management for the

judiciary was held as “not only distasteful and undignified but potentially damaging

to the rule of law”.35 Likewise, in Lindsay v Department of Employment and

Learning,36 it was held that capability assessments for panel members of the

employment tribunals were not an appropriate alternative to a compulsory retirement

age “given the time and cost of capability processes, the possibility of litigation, the

impact of panel members’ dignity, and risks to panel members’ independence”.37

An alternative approach was taken in the WRC case of John O’Brien v PPI Adhesive

Products Ltd,38 in which the individual capacity of the employee was considered.

The adjudication officer highlighted that, although it was “custom and practice” in

the company to retire employees at 65, it should have been taken into consideration

that the complainant in question was fit and healthy with an unblemished work

record. In relation to the duty of employers to carry out individual assessments and

performance management, Lady Hale stated in Seldon:7

“Avoiding the need for performance management may be a legitimate aim, but if in

fact the business already has sophisticated performance management measures in

place, it may not be legitimate to avoid them for only one section of the workforce”.39

It is clear then that employers are under a duty to find an alternative role for an

employee in particular circumstances, unless the employer can objectively justify

avoiding the need for performance management as a legitimate aim. Employers are

in a somewhat difficult position and must engage in a balancing exercise. First, they

must enable an employee to remain in work by likely assessing an employee’s

individual capacity, while keeping the process objective and upholding the dignity

of that employee.9 Any individual assessments of capacity must extend not only to

an employee’s current role, but also to enabling an employer to find a different role

or fewer hours.

Individual needs of the business Although an employer must assess an individual employee to facilitate a request to

remain in work after a normal retirement age, an intriguing paradox is that the

opposite approach has been adopted by the courts in relation to assessing the needs

of the individual business. The courts have been clear that the objective justification

of a compulsory retirement age must not be based on the individual needs of the

business. In the case of R (Age Concern England) v Secretary of State for Business,

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform,40 the CJEU held:

“By their public interest nature, those legitimate aims are distinguishable from purely

individual reasons particular to the employer's situation, such as cost reduction or

improving competitiveness, although it cannot be ruled out that a national rule may

recognise, in the pursuit of those legitimate aims, a certain degree of flexibility for

employers”.41

Grounds advanced by employers must be distinguishable from purely individual

reasons particular to the employer’s situation.42

Intergenerational fairness The courts’ approach to aims offered by employers to justify a compulsory retirement

age has not always been consistent. “Intergenerational fairness” was confirmed as

a legitimate aim by the UK Supreme Court in Seldon and, more recently, in National


Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v Lloyd.22 In the former case, Lady

Hale contended that intergenerational fairness applies to both younger and older

workers, as follows:

“[Intergenerational fairness] can mean a variety of things, depending upon the

particular circumstances of the employment concerned: for example, it can mean

facilitating access to employment by young people; it can mean enabling older

people to remain in the workforce; it can mean sharing limited opportunities to work

in a particular profession fairly between the generations; it can mean promoting

diversity and the interchange of ideas between younger and older workers”.43

In Seldon, Lady Hale described intergenerational fairness as “comparatively

uncontroversial”.43 Notwithstanding that description, the determination of the WRC

in Anne Roper took a novel approach in the interpretation of intergenerational

fairness. The WRC acknowledged that Ms Roper’s position of producer/director

had been filled internally upon her retirement, and this had created a vacancy to

younger employees down the line. Nevertheless, the adjudication officer stated

that the effect of this was so confined and limited to one department that it was

not objectively justified. The adjudication officer stated:

“It seems to me that her departure may have facilitated the temporary alleviation

of disgruntlement, but as a method of achieving intergenerational fairness, it fell

considerably short”.

This is, respectfully, setting a bar too high for employers in fulfilling their duties in

relation to compulsory retirement ages. The adjudication officer rejected the

argument put forward by RTÉ that the court should follow the leading decisions in

the area of the CJEU, namely Palacios De La Villa v Cortefiel Servicios44 and Fuchs

and Köhler v Land Hessen.45

In Palacios, the CJEU held that “legitimate employment policy, labour market and

vocational training objectives” can be regarded as a legitimate aim that can

objectively justify a mandatory retirement age. The WRC in Anne Roper rejected

the arguments of RTÉ that Palacios was comparable to Ireland, and held that this

case did “not reflect the circumstances of the complainant and the respondent,

where her retirement resulted in the promotion of just one individual in one

organisation, in a country where unemployment is relatively low”.

Similarly, the WRC held that the case of Fuchs and Köhler did not apply because it

concerned the retirement of judges in Germany, which were an “identifiable group

of worker”, namely judges.

The adjudication officer stated that both of these CJEU cases were decided on the

specific facts relating to the countries in question, namely Spain and Germany. This

is a new departure within this jurisdiction and many employers will be anxiously

awaiting the appeal at the Labour Court, as it could have far-reaching consequences

for their businesses.

Conclusion It is respectfully suggested that the WRC decisions of Valerie Cox and Anne

Roper have made it increasingly difficult for employers to ascertain whether a

customary retirement age within an organisation will survive a discrimination

claim on grounds of age. At a time when employers now have a wide range of

duties towards older workers, further clarity in this area would be most

welcome.46

LAW IN PRACTICE

References

1. ADJ-00019084; December 18, 2019. 2. A hearing date has not been assigned for this appeal. 3. Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Longer Working)

(Declaration) Order of 2017 (S.I. 600 of 2017). 4. Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] 30 E.L.R. 221; para. 106. 5. More recently, the WRC confirmed that from January to June 2019 the most

frequent complaint related to equality was age at 31%. 6. Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] UKSC 16; para. 2. 7. [2012] UKSC 16. 8. Para. 15. 9. Blackham, A. Interrogating the ‘dignity’ argument for mandatory retirement:

an undignified development? Industrial Law Journal 2019; (48) (3): 377. 10. Joined cases C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-635/18. 11. Zelazna, E. The Rule of Law Crisis Deepens in Poland after A.K. v Krajowa

Rada Sadownictwa and CP, DO v Sad Najwyzszy. European Papers. European Forum, January 12, 2020, pp. 1-6.

12. European Commission’s 2012 White Paper. 13. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

(Eurofound). 14. Ibid. 15. Section 1 of the 2004 Act. 16. Regan, M. and Murphy, A. Employment Law. Dublin: Bloomsbury Professional,

2017; paras. 17.200-17.265. 17. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of November 27, 2000 establishing a general

framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; Art. 2. 18. See Re Article 26 of the Constitution and in the matter of the Employment

Equality Bill 1996. 19. See also Recitals 14 and 23.

20. ADJ-00023576; February 5, 2020. 21. [2008] IEHC 467. 22. [2019] IRLR 897. 23. Para. 49. 24. P.7. 25. DAC-E2013-197. 26. [2018] 29 E.L.R. 204. 27. Para. 37. 28. ADJ-00006972; March 26, 2018. 29. ADJ-00019084; December 18, 2019. 30. ADJ-00014857; October 15, 2019. 31. P. 38. 32. ADJ-00013899; May 20, 2019. 33. Para. 57. 34. [2014] UKET 2201298/2013. 35. Para. 45. 36. [2013] NIET 356/12. 37. P. 16. 38. ADJ-00009914; August 10, 2018. 30. Para. 61. 40. [2009] IRLR 37. 41. Para. 46. 42. Fuchs v Land Hessen, C-159/10 and C-160/10; [2011] IRLR 104; para. 52. 43. Para. 56. 44. SA441/05. 45. Joined cases C-159/10 and C-160/10 [2011] ECR I-6919. 46. See Age Action, Briefing Paper 1 on ‘Abolishing mandatory retirement’, 2016.


The Legal Aid Board is currently celebrating its 40th anniversary. Its establishment

is rooted in the Pringle Report of 1977 and the seminal judgment of the European

Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Airey v Ireland in 1979, which deemed Ireland’s

failure to facilitate effective access to court to enable the applicant to obtain a

judicial separation a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: the right to a fair trial. A right to civil legal aid

in complex cases was recognised by the Court and it soon followed that the

institution of a Civil Legal Aid Scheme was essential if Ireland was to guarantee

litigants, particularly those of limited means, effective access before the courts.

Since its establishment the Legal Aid Board has been providing a very valuable and

necessary service; however, over the years, legal practitioners engaged by the Board

have experienced a number of difficulties across the operation of the Scheme, giving

rise to a serious concern that the existing system cannot adequately protect the

rights of individuals seeking to assert, protect and vindicate their legal rights.

Need for improvements It is widely acknowledged that improvements are needed in terms of eligibility for

access to legal aid. The current income threshold, ¤18,000, is impractical, and the

exclusion of many areas of law leaves vulnerable groups and individuals with little

recourse. Members of the legal profession, and organisations such as FLAC and

Community Law & Mediation (CLM), strive to address this deficit, but ultimately

the Government must address the fundamental inadequacies of the Scheme. In its

Report on Reform of the Family Law System (October 2019), the Joint Committee

on Justice and Equality recommended that “a full review of the legal aid scheme be

conducted, with particular regard to means test rates, contribution requirements

and eligibility, in order to ensure that the scheme is meeting the needs of those

most vulnerable in society”. However, reform of the eligibility criteria will not, in

itself, ensure access to justice. A person who qualifies for legal aid potentially faces

up to 58 weeks before they can see a solicitor. This is particularly concerning in the

area of family and childcare law, which are the predominant areas in which the Board

provides services. The longer disputes of this nature go unresolved, the more likely

that an already stressful and volatile situation will be heightened.

Skills and expertise The demands on the Scheme are further compounded by increasingly complex

litigation. The fees prescribed for barristers undertaking civil legal aid work are wholly

inadequate and do not reflect the level of work, expertise, and complexity involved.

For many practitioners it has become unviable to continue to participate in the

Scheme. This creates a real concern regarding an emerging dearth of experienced

barristers on the Board’s panels. The expertise required to advise and advocate in

family and childcare law is of a specialised nature and there is a strong public interest

in ensuring that the best advocates are attracted to practise in these areas.

The specialist skills, knowledge and experience of a range of other professionals are

also vital to family law proceedings, particularly in giving effect to Article 42A of

the Constitution, which prescribes a right to every child to have their views heard in

judicial proceedings that affect them. The Child and Family Relationships Act 2015

requires the court to consider a series of factors in determining the best interests of

the child and these necessitate the input of suitably qualified experts. In

circumstances where one party is legally aided, the Board will discharge 50% of the

cost for that person. It is then up to the non-legally aided individual to discharge

their half of the report. Where neither party is legally aided, this leads to a real

difficulty where the availability of this service to children will be dependent on their

parents being able to afford the cost. This is contributing to the development of a

two-tier system of family justice, whereby giving full effect to the constitutional

right of the child for his/her voice to be heard is the preserve of the better off.

The economic argument The procurement of necessary expertise by the Legal Aid Board to ensure effective

access to justice necessitates adequate funding. An enhanced civil legal aid system,

however, competes in a finite pool of public resources, and legal aid does not feature

as high on the political agenda as other priority issues such as health and housing.

Never before has there been greater demand on public spending, as the Government

takes every fiscal measure necessary, and rightly so, to deal with the devastating

impact of Covid-19. However, the pandemic is going to have a severe impact on

people’s lives and it is inevitable that the demand for legal aid will increase further

in the coming weeks and months. With unemployment levels on the rise, more and

more people will become eligible for legal aid, and access to justice will become even

more pertinent, as citizens seek to assert, protect and vindicate rights that may have

been adversely affected by the crisis.

There are strong economic arguments to support investment in legal aid. A recent

World Bank report, in collaboration with the International Bar Association

(September 2019), notes that the failure to address the justice gap through legal

aid can be “a false economy, as the costs of unresolved problems shift to other areas

of government spending such as health care, housing, child protection, and

incarceration… Studies find significant net economic benefits [as a result of public

investment in legal aid], even in the short term, including immediate benefits to

clients and cost-savings to governments”. The report demonstrates that the provision

of an efficient, well-resourced legal aid service can help to maximise positive

outcomes for clients and decrease cycles of disadvantage, while alleviating pressures

on other areas of public expenditure and contributing to the wider economy.

At times of budgetary constraints and fiscal emergency, with policy-makers under

increasing pressure to justify public expenditure and demonstrate evidenced-based

decision-making, a cost–benefit analysis of legal aid is a prudent approach.

CLOSING ARGUMENT

Underfunded justice

Seán Ó hUallacháin SC Rachel Baldwin BL

TITLE


www.lawlibrary.ie

mailto:[email protected]

REVIEW - Home - Law Library of Ireland€¦ · Lydia Bunni BL Simon Donagh BL Elizabeth Donovan BL...

Documents

Transcript of REVIEW - Home - Law Library of Ireland€¦ · Lydia Bunni BL Simon Donagh BL Elizabeth Donovan BL...